[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 179 (Thursday, December 10, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8604-S8610]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Brown, Mr. Whitehouse, Mrs.
Gillibrand, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Sanders, Ms. Warren, and Mr.
Merkley):
S. 2387. A bill to restore protections for Social Security, Railroad
retirement, and Black Lung benefits from administrative offset; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, every day, Social Security provides vital
benefits to millions of Americans who worked and paid into the system.
To ensure workers would receive full access to these fundamental
lifeline benefits, for many years, the law protected these earned
benefits from attempts to recover debts. However, 20 years ago,
Congress suddenly reversed course, and made a change to the law that
allowed the government to cut Social Security and other hard-earned
benefit payments in order to collect student loan and other Federal
debts, like home loans owed to the Veterans Administration, and food
stamp overpayments.
Now more than ever, the loss of these protections is creating a major
hardship for American Citizens who rely on Social Security and other
earned benefits to make ends meet. Student loan debt is becoming an
increasingly serious problem in in Oregon and across the nation, with
students and their families burdened by crushing student loan debt.
Even in the best circumstances, many families will struggle to pay off
crippling loans for years to come. However, for people who rely on
benefits like Social Security after retirement, disability, or the
death of a family member, making payments on student loans or other
federal debts can become an insurmountable hardship.
Because of the lifeline nature of these earned benefits, for more
than 40 years the law prevented all creditors from collecting hard-
earned Social Security, Railroad Retirement, and Black Lung benefits to
recoup debts. The only exceptions included unpaid Federal taxes, child
support or alimony payments, and court-ordered victim restitution.
These protections helped ensure that our social safety net programs
were functioning as intended--something I think we can all agree is
essential to preserving Social Security and other earned benefits.
Astonishingly, when the law changed as part of a 1996 omnibus budget
bill, these changes were never fully debated in Congress. This means
Members of Congress never had the chance to really explore how this
policy would affect beneficiaries. The legislation ultimately included
some protections for the most vulnerable, but even those protections
have not been updated in 20 years.
We now realize what a profound effect the loss of these protections
has had on retirees and individuals with disabilities, who often live
on fixed incomes. More and more seniors and people with disabilities
are having their Social Security and other lifeline benefits taken away
to pay federal debts. For example, according to a September 2014 GAO
report, the number of individuals whose Social Security benefits were
offset to pay student loan debt increased significantly between 2002
and 2013, from about 31,000 to 155,000. For individuals 65 and older
with student loan-related Social Security garnishments, the number grew
from about 6,000 to about 36,000 over the same period. Congress should
restore sanity to the system, and reestablish the protections that
these beneficiaries deserve.
That is why I, along with Senators Brown, Whitehouse, Gillibrand,
Klobuchar, Sanders and Warren are introducing the Protection of Social
Security Benefits Restoration Act. The bill would restore the strong
protections in the law that prevented the government from taking away
earned benefits to pay Federal debts, and guarantee beneficiaries will
be able to maintain a basic standard of living by receiving the
benefits they have earned. The bill is supported by Social Security
Works, The Strengthen Social Security Coalition, AFL-CIO, Justice in
Aging, Campaign for America's Future, Global Policy Solutions, Student
Debt Crisis, the National Organization for Women, RootsAction.org,
Project Springboard, The Alliance for a Just Society, the Economic
Opportunity Institute, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, The
Arc of the United States, The Public Higher Education Network of
Massachusetts, the American Federation of Government Employees, and the
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2387
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Protection of Social
Security Benefits Restoration Act''.
SEC. 2. PROTECTING SOCIAL SECURITY, RAILROAD RETIREMENT, AND
BLACK LUNG BENEFITS FROM ADMINISTRATIVE OFFSET.
(a) Prohibition on Administrative Offset Authority.--
(1) Assignment under social security act.--Section 207 of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 407) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Subparagraphs (A), (C), and (D) of section 3716(c)(3)
of title 31, United States Code, as such subparagraphs were
in effect on the date before the date of enactment of the
Protection of Social Security Benefits Restoration Act, shall
be null and void and of no effect.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 14(a) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974
(45 U.S.C. 231m(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``. The provisions of section 207(d) of the Social
Security Act shall apply with respect to this title to the
same extent as they apply in the case of title II of such
Act.''.
(B) Section 2(e) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act
(45 U.S.C. 352(e)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``The provisions of section 207(d) of the Social
Security Act shall apply with respect to this title to the
same extent as they apply in the case of title II of such
Act.''
(b) Repeal of Administrative Offset Authority.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (3) of section 3716(c) of title
31, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``(3)(A)(i) Notwithstanding'' and all that
follows through ``any overpayment under such program).'';
(B) by striking subparagraphs (C) and (D); and
(C) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as paragraph (3).
(2) Conforming amendment.--Paragraph (5) of such section is
amended by striking ``the Commissioner of Social Security
and''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to any collection by administrative offset
occurring on or after the date of enactment of this Act of a
claim arising before, on, or after the date of enactment of
this Act.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Ms. Cantwell):
S. 2389. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
extend the rural add-on payment in the Medicare home health benefit,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from
Washington, Senator Cantwell, to introduce the Preserve Access to
Medicare Rural Home Health Services Act of 2015. This legislation would
extend the modest increase in payments for home health services in
rural areas that otherwise will expire on January 1 of 2018.
Home health has become an increasingly important part of our health
care system. The kinds of highly skilled--and often technically
complex--services that our nation's home health caregivers provide have
enabled millions of our most frail and vulnerable older and disabled
citizens to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and stay just where they
want to be--in the comfort, privacy, and security of their own homes. I
have accompanied several of Maine's caring home health nurses on their
visits to patients and have seen first hand the difference that they
are making for patients and their families.
Surveys have shown that the delivery of home health services in rural
areas can be as much as 12 to 15 percent more costly because of the
extra travel time
[[Page S8605]]
required to cover long distances between patients, higher
transportation expenses, and other factors. Because of the longer
travel times, rural caregivers are unable to make as many visits in a
day as their urban counterparts. For example, home health care agencies
in Aroostook County in Northern Maine, where I am from, cover almost
6,700 square miles, with an average population of fewer than 11 persons
per square mile. These agencies' costs are understandably much higher
than other agencies located in more urban areas due to the long
distances the staff must drive to see clients. Moreover, the staff is
not able to see as many patients due to time on the road.
Agencies serving rural areas are also frequently smaller than their
urban counterparts, which means that their relative costs are higher.
Smaller agencies with fewer patients and fewer visits mean that fixed
costs, particularly those associated with meeting regulatory
requirements, are spread over a much smaller number of patients and
visits, increasing overall per-patient and per-visit costs.
Moreover, in many rural areas, home health agencies are the primary
caregivers for homebound beneficiaries with limited access to
transportation. These rural patients often require more time and care
than their urban counterparts and are understandably more expensive for
agencies to serve. If the extra three per cent rural payment is not
extended, agencies may be forced to decide not to accept rural patients
with greater care needs. That could translate into less access to
health care for ill, homebound seniors. The result would likely be that
these seniors would be hospitalized more frequently and would have to
seek care in nursing homes, adding considerable cost to the system.
Failure to extend the rural add-on payment would only put more
pressure on rural home health agencies that are already operating on
very narrow margins and could force some of the agencies to close their
doors altogether. If any of these agencies were forced to close, the
Medicare patients in that region could lose all of their access to home
care.
The legislation we are introducing today will extend the rural add-on
for 5 years and help to ensure that Medicare patients in rural areas
continue to have access to the home health services they need.
Moreover, we would offset costs of the bill by reducing the home health
outlier fund by .25 percent over the same 5 years. I urge our
colleagues to join us as cosponsors.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
S. 2390. A bill to provide adequate protections for whistleblowers at
the Federal Bureau of Investigation; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in his 2013 confirmation hearing, FBI
Director James Comey called whistleblowers ``a critical element of a
functioning democracy.''
That is what I have been saying for years. Whistleblowers expose
waste, fraud, and abuse. They help keep Government honest and make sure
taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. By pointing out problems,
whistleblowers foster transparency and make it possible for an
organization to do better.
Agencies should value their contributions. Instead, agencies often
ignore whistleblower complaints or worse--retaliate against
whistleblowers for bringing wrongdoing to light.
Across the Federal Government, whistleblowers are treated like skunks
at a picnic, instead of the dedicated public servants they are.
Unfortunately, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is no exception on
that point. However, the FBI is the exception when it comes to legal
protections for whistleblowers.
Unlike every other federal agency, the FBI is the only agency where
employees are not protected for reporting wrongdoing to their direct
supervisors or others within their chain-of-command. This makes no
sense.
Studies show the great majority of whistleblowers first make
disclosures to their supervisors. The FBI's own policy encourages
reports to supervisors within the chain-of-command. Nevertheless, an
FBI employee who makes a disclosure of waste, fraud, or abuse to their
supervisor has no protection under law if the supervisor retaliates.
It is no surprise, then, that a 2015 report by the Government
Accountability Office found that, of the 54 closed FBI whistleblower
complaints it reviewed where documentation showed the reason for
closing the case, at least 17 cases were dismissed in part because an
employee made a disclosure to someone in their chain-of-command or
management.
Why is there this gaping hole in FBI whistleblower protections?
Because, unlike every other federal law enforcement agency, the FBI is
statutorily exempt from government-wide whistleblower protection laws.
As a result, it lives under its own unique regulatory scheme conceived,
created, and controlled entirely within the Department of Justice.
There is no independent review.
This unique exemption for the FBI has led to outrageous delays in the
adjudication of FBI whistleblower complaints due to endless internal
appeals and the low priority that FBI whistleblower cases receive at
the Justice Department.
Currently, FBI whistleblower cases are adjudicated by the
Department's Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management--an office
whose very name clearly shows it was not designed to address reprisal
cases. Appeals are considered by the Deputy Attorney General's office.
That office has made clear that it has other priorities that render it
incapable of even minimal communications with whistleblowers to inform
them of their case status. Clearly, we need to do better.
I have worked with many FBI whistleblowers over the years who put
everything on the line just to tell the truth. In exchange for their
courage, they faced delays of up to a decade in adjudicating their
cases, a deaf ear from the highest levels of the Justice Department,
and in many cases, no protection at all.
Consider the case of Michael German. Michael testified at our hearing
in March this year where we examined the effectiveness--or lack
thereof--of the Justice Department's FBI whistleblower regulations.
Before he resigned from the FBI in 2004, Michael German was a
decorated undercover special agent who successfully risked his life to
infiltrate white supremacist and neo-Nazi hate groups across the United
States, some with ties to foreign terrorist groups. He discovered that
a portion of a meeting between two such groups had been illegally
recorded by mistake.
Rather than following the rules and documenting the error, as he
suggested, a supervisor told him to ``pretend it didn't happen.'' But
he refused to back down. He reported the wrongdoing to his Assistant
Special Agent in Charge. Then the FBI ``froze him out and made him a
`pariah.' ''
Because Special Agent German disclosed wrongdoing to his ASAC instead
of one of the nine specifically designated entities in the Justice
Department regulations, he was not protected. His case was not even
investigated ``in earnest,'' according to him, until he resigned from
the FBI and reported the matter to Congress.
This is the tragedy of weak FBI whistleblower protections: If this
bill had been law when Michael German first blew the whistle, this
country might still have the benefit of this decorated FBI Special
Agent in our fight against terrorism. He is by far not the only FBI
whistleblower sidelined and ostracized by the failures of current law
and policy.
In today's world, we cannot afford to lose public servants like
Michael German. That is why today, with my cosponsor Senator Leahy, I
am introducing this hi-partisan legislation, the FBI Whistleblower
Protection Enhancement Act of 2015.
Among other things, this bill will for the first time provide legal
protection to FBI employees who report wrongdoing to their supervisors,
provide a more independent process for whistleblowers who have suffered
reprisal, and increase oversight and transparency of the FBI
whistleblower complaint process.
This bill is a long time coming. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
[[Page S8606]]
S. 2390
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Bureau of
Investigation Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of
2015''.
SEC. 2. FBI WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 2303 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 2303. Prohibited personnel practices in the Federal
Bureau of Investigation
``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `administrative law judge' means an
administrative law judge appointed by the Attorney General
under section 3105 or used by the Attorney General under
section 3344;
``(2) the term `Inspector General' means the Inspector
General of the Department of Justice;
``(3) the term `personnel action' means any action
described in section 2302(a)(2)(A) with respect to an
employee in, or applicant for, a position in the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (other than a position of a
confidential, policy-determining, policymaking, or policy-
advocating character);
``(4) the term `prohibited personnel practice' means a
prohibited personnel practice described in subsection (b);
and
``(5) the term `protected disclosure' means any disclosure
of information by an employee in, or applicant for, a
position in the Federal Bureau of Investigation--
``(A) made--
``(i) for an employee, to a supervisor in the direct chain
of command of the employee, up to and including the head of
the employing agency;
``(ii) to the Inspector General;
``(iii) to the Office of Professional Responsibility of the
Department of Justice;
``(iv) to the Office of Professional Responsibility of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation;
``(v) to the Inspection Division of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;
``(vi) to a Member of Congress;
``(vii) to the Office of Special Counsel; or
``(viii) to an employee designated by any officer,
employee, office, or division described in clauses (i)
through (vii) for the purpose of receiving such disclosures;
and
``(B) which the employee or applicant reasonably believes
evidences--
``(i) any violation of any law, rule, or regulation; or
``(ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an
abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to
public health or safety.
``(b) Prohibited Practices.--Any employee of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation or another component of the
Department of Justice who has authority to take, direct
others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action,
shall not, with respect to such authority--
``(1) take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to
take, a personnel action with respect to an employee in, or
applicant for, a position in the Federal Bureau of
Investigation because of a protected disclosure;
``(2) take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to
take, any personnel action against an employee in, or
applicant for, a position in the Federal Bureau of
Investigation because of--
``(A) the exercise of any appeal, complaint, or grievance
right granted by any law, rule, or regulation--
``(i) with regard to remedying a violation of paragraph
(1); or
``(ii) other than with regard to remedying a violation of
paragraph (1);
``(B) testifying for or otherwise lawfully assisting any
individual in the exercise of any right referred to in clause
(i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A);
``(C) cooperating with or disclosing information to the
Inspector General of an agency, or the Special Counsel, in
accordance with applicable provisions of law; or
``(D) refusing to obey an order that would require the
individual to violate a law; or
``(3) implement or enforce any nondisclosure policy, form,
or agreement, if such policy, form, or agreement does not
contain the statement described in section 2302(b)(13).
``(c) Procedures.--
``(1) Filing of a complaint.--An employee in, or applicant
for, a position in the Federal Bureau of Investigation may
seek review of a personnel action alleged to be in violation
of subsection (b) by filing a complaint with the Office of
the Inspector General.
``(2) Investigation.--
``(A) In general.--The Inspector General shall investigate
any complaint alleging a personnel action in violation of
subsection (b), consistent with the procedures and
requirements described in section 1214.
``(B) Determination.--The Inspector General--
``(i) shall issue a decision containing the findings of the
Inspector General supporting the determination of the
Inspector General; and
``(ii) if the Inspector General determines that reasonable
grounds exist to believe that a personnel action occurred,
exists, or is to be taken, in violation of subsection (b),
the Inspector General shall request from an administrative
law judge, and the administrative law judge, without further
proceedings, shall issue, a preliminary order staying the
personnel action.
``(3) Filing of objections.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the
Inspector General issues a decision under paragraph
(2)(B)(i), either party may file objections to the decision
and request a hearing on the record.
``(B) No effect on stay.--The filing of objections under
subparagraph (A) shall not affect the stay of a personnel
action under a preliminary order issued under paragraph
(2)(B)(ii).
``(C) No objections filed.--If no party has filed
objections as of the date that is 61 days after the date the
Inspector General issues a decision--
``(i) the decision is final and not subject to further
review; and
``(ii) if the Inspector General had determined that
reasonable grounds exist to believe that a personnel action
occurred, exists, or is to be taken, in violation of
subsection (b)--
``(I) an administrative law judge, without further
proceedings, shall issue an order permanently staying the
personnel action; and
``(II) upon motion by the employee, and after an
opportunity for a hearing, an administrative law judge may
issue an order that provides for corrective action as
described under section 1221(g).
``(4) Review by administrative law judge.--
``(A) In general.--If objections are filed under paragraph
(3)(A), an administrative law judge shall review the decision
by the Inspector General on the record after opportunity for
agency hearing.
``(B) Corrective action.--An administrative law judge may
issue an order providing for corrective action as described
under section 1221(g).
``(C) Determination.--An administrative law judge shall
issue a written decision explaining the grounds for the
determination by the administrative law judge under this
paragraph.
``(D) Effect of determination.--The determination by an
administrative law judge under this paragraph shall become
the decision of the Department of Justice without further
proceedings, unless there is an appeal to, or review on
motion of, the Attorney General within such time as the
Attorney General shall by rule establish.
``(5) Review by attorney general.--
``(A) Timeframe.--
``(i) In general.--Upon an appeal to, or review on motion
of, the Attorney General under paragraph (4)(D), the Attorney
General, through reference to such categories of cases, or
other means, as the Attorney General determines appropriate,
shall establish and announce publicly the date by which the
Attorney General intends to complete action on the matter,
which shall ensure expeditious consideration of the appeal or
review, consistent with the interests of fairness and other
priorities of the Attorney General.
``(ii) Failure to meet deadline.--If the Attorney General
fails to complete action on an appeal or review by the
announced date, and the expected delay will exceed 30 days,
the Attorney General shall publicly announce the new date by
which the Attorney General intends to complete action on the
appeal or review.
``(B) Determination.--The Attorney General shall issue a
written decision explaining the grounds for the determination
by the Attorney General in an appeal or review under
paragraph (4)(D).
``(6) Publication of determinations.--
``(A) Public availability.--Except as provided in
subparagraph (B), the Attorney General shall make written
decisions issued by administrative law judges under paragraph
(4)(C) and written decisions issued by the Attorney General
under paragraph (5)(B) publicly available.
``(B) Rule of construction.--Nothing in subparagraph (A)
shall be construed to limit the authority of an
administrative law judge or the Attorney General to limit the
public disclosure of information under law or regulations.
``(7) Judicial review.--Any determination by an
administrative law judge or the Attorney General under this
subsection shall be subject to judicial review under chapter
7. A petition for judicial review of such a determination
shall be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of competent
jurisdiction.
``(d) Regulations.--The Attorney General shall prescribe
regulations to carry out subsection (c) that--
``(1) ensure that prohibited personnel practices shall not
be taken against an employee in, or applicant for, a position
in the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and
``(2) provide for the administration and enforcement of
subsection (c) in a manner consistent with applicable
provisions of sections 1214 and 1221 and in accordance with
the procedures under subchapter II of chapter 5 and chapter
7.
``(e) Reporting.--Not later than March 1 of each year, the
Attorney General shall make publically available a report
containing--
``(1) the number and nature of allegations of a prohibited
personnel practice received during the previous year;
``(2) the disposition of each allegation of a prohibited
personnel practice resolved during the previous year;
``(3) the number of unresolved allegations of a prohibited
personnel practice pending as of the end of the previous year
and, for each such unresolved allegation, how long the
allegation had been pending as of the end of the previous
year;
[[Page S8607]]
``(4) the number of disciplinary investigations and actions
taken with respect to each allegation of a prohibited
personnel practice during the previous year;
``(5) the number of instances during the previous year in
which the Inspector General found a reasonable basis that a
prohibited personnel practice had occurred that were appealed
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and
``(6) the number of allegations of a prohibited personnel
practice resolved through settlement, including the number
that were resolved as a result of mediation.
``(f) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to limit the jurisdiction of any office under
any other provision of law to conduct an investigation to
determine whether a prohibited personnel practice has been or
will be taken.''.
(b) GAO Report.--
(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``prohibited
personnel practice'' means a prohibited personnel practice
described in section 2303(b) of title 5, United States Code,
as added by subsection (a).
(2) Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to Congress a report on the effects of
the amendment made by subsection (a), which shall include--
(A) an evaluation of the timeliness of resolution of
allegations of a prohibited personnel practice;
(B) an analysis of the corrective action provided in
instances of a prohibited personnel practice;
(C) the number and type of disciplinary actions taken in
instances of a prohibited personnel practice;
(D) an evaluation of the communication by the Inspector
General of the Department of Justice with an individual
alleging a prohibited personnel practice regarding the
investigation and resolution of the allegation;
(E) an assessment of the mediation process of the
Department of Justice; and
(F) a discussion of how the use of administrative law
judges and review under chapters 5 and 7 of title 5, United
States Code, affected the process of investigating and
resolving allegations of a prohibited personnel practice.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, whistleblowers serve an essential role in
providing transparency and accountability in the Federal Government. It
is important that all government employees are provided with strong and
effective avenues to come forward with evidence of government abuse and
misuse. To ensure that whistleblowers feel comfortable speaking up when
they discover wrongdoing, it is also imperative that they are afforded
protections from retaliation. That is why Senator Grassley and I are
joining together to introduce the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
``FBI'', Whistleblower Protection Enhancements Act of 2015.
Current FBI policies do not go far enough to protect whistleblowers.
In March, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing that highlighted a
number of serious problems facing whistleblowers at the FBI. We
received testimony about the lack of protections for employees who
report waste, fraud, or abuse to their direct supervisors. We also
heard instances of the FBI failing to comply with regulatory
requirements when conducting retaliation investigations, and that
adjudication of contested cases can take years. One former employee,
Michael German, testified in detail about how he was forced to end his
distinguished career at the FBI after he disclosed to Congress serious
deficiencies in the agency's handling of counterterrorism
investigations. He chose to do this after making a protected
whistleblower disclosure at the FBI that went nowhere while the
retaliation continued.
The concerns expressed at the hearing echo concerns that were
identified in two recent reports on the FBI whistleblower framework,
one by the Department of Justice and the other by Government
Accountability Office. Clearly the status quo is unacceptable. Congress
should extend to FBI whistleblowers the same level of protection that
is afforded other Federal employees who speak out about waste, fraud,
or abuse. That is what Senator Grassley and I seek to do today with
this bill.
Our legislation closely tracks the protections contained in the
Whistleblower Protection Act. Importantly, we extend whistleblower
protections to FBI employees who blow the whistle to supervisors in
their chain of command. This common sense fix is crucial to protect
those employees who dare to speak up and report concerns to their
superiors. The bill also provides clear guidance on the investigation
and adjudication of retaliation claims. Investigations will now be
handled solely by the Office of Inspector General, rather than sharing
this responsibility with the Office of Professional Responsibility.
This will provide much needed clarity and consistency in the process.
Contested cases will now be adjudicated by Administrative Law Judges
instead of by the Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management. Under
this new process the Administrative Procedures Act will apply, ensuring
a hearing on the record and strong procedural protections for all
parties.
This bipartisan bill will help to ensure that FBI employees are able
to blow the whistle on waste, fraud, or abuse at the FBI and not face
personal repercussions for doing so. I urge the Senate to act quickly
to take up and pass this important bipartisan legislation.
______
By Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Markey, and Mr. Merkley):
S. 2391. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
permanently extend certain energy tax provisions; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, one of the great moral issues of our time
is the global crisis of climate change. Let me be very clear about
climate change. Climate change is not a Democratic issue or a
progressive issue. It is not a Republican issue or a conservative
issue. What it is, is an issue that has everything to do with physics.
It is an issue of physics. What we know beyond a shadow of a doubt is
that the debate is over, and that is that the vast majority of the
scientists who have studied the issues are quite clear. What they tell
us over and over again is that climate change is real, climate change
is caused by human activity, and climate change is already causing
devastating problems throughout our country and, in fact, throughout
the world.
What the scientists also tell us is that we have a relatively short
window of opportunity to bring about the fundamental changes we need in
our global energy system to transform our energy system from fossil
fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. We have a limited
window of opportunity. What the scientists are telling us very clearly
is if we do not seize that opportunity, if we do not lead the world--
working with China, Russia, India and other countries--in transforming
the global energy system, the planet we leave to our children and our
grandchildren will be significantly less habitable than the planet we
enjoy.
My nightmare is that 20, 30, 40 years from now our kids and our
grandchildren will look Members of the Senate and the House in the eye,
and they will say: The scientists told you what would happen and you
did nothing. Why did you not react? How hard was it to stand up to the
fossil fuel industry and transform our energy system away from coal and
oil into energy efficiency and wind, solar, geothermal, and other
sustainable energies?
Pope Francis recently made what I thought to be a very profound
statement. He said that our planet is on a suicidal direction--a
suicidal direction--in terms of climate change. What a frightening and
horrible thought. How irresponsible can we be to ignore what the entire
scientific community is saying?
I know there are many of my colleagues who refuse to acknowledge the
reality. As perhaps the most progressive Member of the U.S. Senate let
me simply say this: I have differences with my Republican colleagues on
virtually every issue. That goes without saying, but there is something
very different about this issue. I have been in hearings with my
Republican colleagues where I heard doctors and scientists talk about
cancer, about Alzheimer's, about diabetes, about all kinds of
illnesses, and I may disagree with my Republican colleagues about how
we go forward, how much we should fund NIH, but I have never heard my
Republican colleagues attack doctors or researchers or scientists for
their views on cancer research or Alzheimer's research. As I do, they
respect that research. But somehow or another, when it comes to the
issue of climate change, at best what we are seeing Republicans do--
many Republicans, most Republicans--is ignore the issue or claim they
are not scientists or, at worst, attack those scientists who are doing
the research.
Why is that? Why is it that my Republican colleagues accept the
research
[[Page S8608]]
on cancer, on Alzheimer's, on all kinds of illnesses, and they respect
scientists who are working in all kinds of areas. But somehow or
another when it comes to the issue of climate change, my Republican
friends are in denial? What I will say is that this has nothing to do
with science, and it has sadly and tragically everything to do with our
corrupt campaign finance laws, which allow large corporations and
billionaires to contribute as much money as they want into the
political process. In my view, the reality is that any Republican--and
I happen to believe that many Republicans understand the truth about
climate change. But I also believe that any Republican who stood up and
said ``You know what, I just talked to some scientists'' or ``I just
read some of the literature, and this climate change is real, it is
dangerous, and we have to do something about it''--I believe that on
that day when that Republican stands up, the money will stop flowing
from the fossil fuel industry, from the Koch brothers, and there will
be a strong likelihood that Republican would be primaried in the next
election.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, at the national
level where companies have to report what they spend on lobbying and
campaign contributions, the oil companies, coal companies, and electric
utilities have spent a staggering $2.2 billion in Federal lobbying
since 2009 and another $330 million in Federal campaign contributions.
That is just at the Federal level--over $2.5 billion in lobbying and
campaign contributions in just 6 years. Even in Washington, DC, that is
a lot of money, and that is just the money that we know about.
That is not all of it. That is not the end of it. As a result of the
disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which allowed
corporations and billionaires to spend unlimited sums of money, we know
that the Koch brothers, who make most of their money in the fossil fuel
industry, and a handful of their friends will be spending some $900
million--$900 million--from one family and a few of their friends in
the 2016 election cycle. Clearly, one of the reasons they are investing
so much in this election cycle is that they intend to continue doing
everything they can to make sure Congress does not go forward to
protect our kids and our grandchildren against the ravages of climate
change.
According to an 8-month investigation by journalists at Inside
Climate News, Exxon--now ExxonMobil--may have conducted extensive
research on climate change as early as 1977, leading top Exxon
scientists to conclude both that climate change is real and that it was
caused, in part, by the carbon pollution resulting from the use of
Exxon's petroleum-based products. In addition, the purported internal
business memoranda accompanying the reporting asserted that Exxon's
climate science program was launched in response to a perceived
existential threat to its business model. In other words, the
scientists at ExxonMobil, who are scientists, discovered the truth, and
upon hearing the truth, ExxonMobil poured millions of dollars into
organizations whose main function was to deny the reality of climate
change.
The efforts to transform our energy system are taking place not only
here in Washington, the Nation's Capital, but at the State and local
level as well. In States such as Arizona and Florida, roadblocks are
being put up to stop people from gaining access to renewable energy
sources such as wind and especially rooftop solar. In States such as
Arizona and Florida and many of our Southern States with huge solar
exposure, there is huge potential for solar. Yet we are now seeing
politicians, at the behest of the fossil fuel industry, put up
roadblock after roadblock to make it harder for people to move to solar
or wind.
I have heard a lot of the arguments from the fossil fuel industry as
to why we should not transform our energy system, and many of those
arguments are repeated here on the floor by some of my colleagues. But
the truth is that it turns out that transforming our energy system away
from fossil fuel and into energy efficiency and sustainable energy will
create a significant number of new and decent-paying jobs, and it will
lower energy bills in communities all across this country.
My own State of Vermont participates in a regional greenhouse gas
initiative cap-and-trade program for the power sector. Since 2009, the
program has created over 14,000 net jobs, and carbon pollution levels
dropped by 15 percent at the same time consumers, businesses, and other
energy users saw their electricity and heating bills go down by $459
million. The majority of those savings came from energy efficiency. All
the while, jobs were created, not exported, and we relied on clean
domestic energy instead of oil from the Middle East.
Energy efficiency clearly makes an enormous amount of sense. It is
clearly the low-hanging fruit as we transform our energy system.
I have been in homes in Vermont that have been effectively
weatherized, and they are seeing heating bills drop by 50 percent.
People in those homes are living in more comfort, and jobs are being
created by those people who install the insulation and other energy-
efficient tools, not to mention all of the folks who are manufacturing
the insulation, windows, and efficient roofing.
According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,
energy efficiency provides a larger return on investment than any
individual energy source because for every $1 invested in energy
efficiency, we see $4 in total benefits for all consumers. For every $1
billion invested in efficiency upgrades, we see a creation of 19,000
direct and indirect jobs.
These numbers are great and speak for themselves, but acting on
climate change is also a moral obligation. While we will all suffer--
all over our country and all over the world--the impacts of climate
change, the sad truth is that climate impacts fall especially hard upon
the most vulnerable people in our society. Minority and low-income
communities in the United States are disproportionately impacted by the
causes of climate change. According to a 2012 study by the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the NAACP, the
nearly 6 million people in the United States who live within 3 miles of
a coal-burning powerplant have an average per capita annual income of
just over $18,000 a year. Among the people who live within 3 miles of a
coal powerplant, 39 percent are people of color, while people of color
compromise only 36 percent of the total population of the United
States.
The bottom line is that when we talk about climate change and its
impact upon our planet and all the people, we should bear in mind that
this is happening not only in the United States but all over the world.
The people who will suffer the most are low-income people and people
living in poverty.
I am introducing legislation called the American Clean Energy
Investment Act of 2015. This legislation is built upon the fact that
the prices for wind and solar power have plummeted over the last
decade, cutting carbon pollution and creating tens of thousands of new
jobs in the process. Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry benefits from
permanent subsidies worth tens of billions of dollars each year.
Incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency are temporary and
are too often allowed to elapse entirely.
My legislation permanently extends and makes refundable some of our
most important renewable energy tax credits for energy efficiency and
sustainable energy, including sources such as solar, wind, and
geothermal. Permanently extending these incentives will drive over $500
billion in clean energy investments between now and 2030 and are an
integral part of putting us on a pathway to more than doubling the size
of our clean energy workforce to 10 million American workers. The costs
for these incentives are completely offset by repealing the special
interest corporate welfare in the Tax Code for the fossil fuel
industries.
If we are going to be serious about dealing with the threat of
climate change, we need to end the polluter welfare that subsidizes
increased pollution from fossil fuels and instead invest those
resources in clean energy solutions that reduce pollution. Doing this
will save lives, protect our economy, and reduce the threats from
climate change at the same time we are creating millions of good-paying
jobs here in the United States.
Our legislation is supported by the Solar Energy Industries
Association,
[[Page S8609]]
the American Wind Energy Association, 350.org, and cosponsored by
Senators Merkley and Markey.
We have a national responsibility to protect the livelihoods of the
working families and communities who help power and build this country.
We must act now to reenergize our manufacturing base, bolster our clean
energy economy, and protect the livelihoods of energy workers and the
communities they support.
As a result of these concerns, this bill provides up to 3 years of
unemployment insurance, health care, and pensions for workers who lose
their jobs due to our transition to a clean energy economy. In other
words, we understand--as was very much the case with our moving away
from tobacco farming in this country--that the people who do the work
in coal, oil, and other fossil fuels are not to blame for the fact that
the product they produce is causing so many problems in our country.
Our job is to protect and transition them to other decent-paying jobs,
and the government has a responsibility to help with that transition.
Based on what the scientists are telling us, we need to make very
significant cuts in carbon pollution emissions and we need to do it as
soon as possible. It is absolutely vital that we do what many
economists tell us we must do, and that is to put a price on carbon. It
is the simplest and most direct way to make the kinds of cuts in carbon
pollution that we have to make if we are going to successfully
transition from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable
energy. That is why within the Climate Protection and Justice Act that
I am introducing, there will be a tax on carbon. Directly pricing
carbon is a key part of the solution of transforming our energy system.
Many experts support a fee on carbon pollution emissions, including
liberal, moderates, and even prominent conservatives such as George
Shultz, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker, Mitt Romney's former
adviser Gregory Mankiw, former Reagan adviser Art Laffer, former
Republican Bob Inglis, and many others. The idea of a price on carbon
is not just a progressive concept, it is one that is being supported by
economists throughout the political spectrum.
The Nation's leading corporations, including the Nation's five
biggest oil giants, are already planning their future budgets with the
assumptions that there will be a cost applied to carbon emissions. In
other words, some of the very companies that have strongly opposed
action to address climate change are recognizing the reality in front
of them, and that is that the United States is going to--hopefully
sooner rather than later--address the crisis of climate change and that
there will be a tax on carbon. This tax works by setting enforceable
pollution-reduction targets for each decade, including a 40-percent
reduction below 1990 levels by 2030 and a more than 80-percent
reduction level by 2050.
This legislation sets a price on carbon pollution for fossil fuel
producers or importers. Proceeds from the carbon pollution fee are
returned to the bottom 80 percent of households making less than
$100,000 a year to offset them for any increase they might experience
in increased energy costs as a result of this transition. For an
average family of four, this will amount to a rebate of roughly $900 in
2017 and will grow to an annual rebate of $1,900 in 2030. It would only
apply upstream, meaning at the oil refinery, coal mine, natural gas
processing plant, or point of importation. It would apply to fewer than
3,000 of the largest fossil fuel polluters in this country.
EPA's existing authority to regulate carbon pollution, sources from
powerplants, vehicles, and other sources is reaffirmed, and if the
United States is not on track to meet its emissions reduction targets,
the EPA shall issue new regulations to ensure that it does.
Importantly, based on lessons learned from the cap-and-trade law in
California, a Federal interagency council will oversee the creation and
distribution of a climate justice resiliency fund block grant program
to States, territories, tribes, municipalities, counties, localities,
and nonprofit community organizations. The council will provide $20
billion annually for these grants in communities that are vulnerable to
the impacts of climate change for important programs they are running.
This legislation strengthens our manufacturing sector through a
border tariff adjustment mechanism which shields energy-intensive,
trade-exposed industries such as steel, aluminum, glass, pulp and
paper, from unfair international trade policies. The monies raised by
the green tariff are used to help improve industrial energy efficiency.
Farmers receive dedicated funding through the USDA's Rural Energy for
America Program to improve on farm energy efficiency and to adopt
onsite renewable energy. The bill includes incentives for farmers to
adopt no-till practices and creates an incentive program to encourage
the adoption of sustainable fertilizer application practices.
Finally, the bill includes Federal electricity market reforms that
reduce pollution, increase efficiency, and reduce costs by ensuring
equitable grid access for demand response programs.
At the end of the day, the Congress of the United States is going to
have to make some very important and fundamental decisions, and the
most important is whether we believe in science. We can have many
disagreements on many issues, but we should not have a disagreement
about whether we base public policy on science rather than campaign
contributions. That really is the issue we are dealing with right now.
We are in a critical moment in world history. Our planet is becoming
warmer, sea levels are rising, and communities all over the world that
are on seacoasts are being threatened. The ocean is being acidified to
an unprecedented level, which has huge impacts in so many areas,
including the ability of people to fish and gain nutrients from the
ocean.
We are looking at unprecedented levels of heat waves in India,
Pakistan, and Europe that have killed thousands of people. We are
looking at forest fires on the west coast of that country that are
unprecedented in terms of their duration and their ferocity.
So we have to make a decision about whether we stand with our
children and our grandchildren or whether we stand with campaign
contributors from the fossil fuel industry.
Climate change is real. Climate change is caused by human activity.
Climate change is already causing devastating damage on this planet.
Our job is now to stand with our children, to stand with our
grandchildren, and to make certain that they have a planet that is
healthy and that is habitable. That is what the legislation I am
introducing will do.
______
By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Franken, Mr. Tester, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Booker, Ms. Baldwin, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 2397. A bill to amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make grants
to States that extend or eliminate unexpired statutes of limitation
applicable to laws involving child sexual abuse; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the
bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2397
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT.
(a) In General.--The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Act (42 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``TITLE III--GRANTS FOR THE PREVENTION OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
``SEC. 301. FINDINGS.
``Congress finds that--
``(1) child sexual abuse is a pernicious crime perpetrated
through threats of violence, intimidation, manipulation, and
abuse of power;
``(2) due to the subversive nature of this crime, the
average age of disclosure of incestuous child sexual abuse
does not occur until a victim is over 25 years old;
``(3) because many State statutes of limitations applicable
to laws involving child sexual abuse fail to give victims
adequate time to come forward and report their abuse,
numerous victims are unable to seek fair and just remediation
against their abusers; and
``(4) due to the especially heinous nature of child sexual
abuse, it is imperative that perpetrators of this crime are
punished, prevented from reoffending, and victims have
[[Page S8610]]
the opportunity to see their abusers brought to justice.
``SEC. 302. DEFINITIONS.
``In this title--
``(1) the term `eligible State' means a State or Indian
tribe that, not later than September 30 of the preceding
fiscal year does not have any statute of limitations
applicable to laws involving child sexual abuse; and
``(2) the term `Indian tribe' means a tribe identified in
the list published by the Secretary of the Interior in the
Federal Register pursuant to section 104 of the Federally
Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a-1).
``SEC. 303. GRANT PROGRAM.
``The Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney General,
is authorized to make grants to eligible States for the
purpose of assisting eligible States in developing,
establishing, and operating programs designed to improve--
``(1) the assessment and investigation of suspected child
sexual abuse cases, in a manner that limits additional trauma
to the child and the family of the child;
``(2) the investigation and prosecution of cases of child
sexual abuse; and
``(3) the assessment and investigation of cases involving
children with disabilities or serious health-related problems
who are suspected victims of child sexual abuse.
``SEC. 304. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title $40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2016 through
2025.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to any violation of a law involving child sexual
abuse committed before the date of the enactment of this Act
if the statute of limitations applicable to that law had not
run as of the date of enactment of this Act.
____________________