[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.

                          ____________________