[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 2, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S985-S986]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Whistleblower Program

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to compliment that the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission operates a highly successful whistleblower 
program. As one of the Senators who led the effort to establish that 
whistleblower program back in 2010, I am proud of what this program has 
accomplished.
  Since the Commission issued its first whistleblower award in 2014, 
whistleblowers have helped the Agency root out waste, fraud, and abuse 
in the commodities trading industry and has recovered nearly $950 
million. That is a very good reason to compliment the Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission. That is a lot of restitution for harmed investors. 
It is also a lot of money going to the U.S. Treasury and to the 
American taxpayers.
  Now, if Congress doesn't act quickly, all of that progress could come 
to a swift and sudden halt.
  Several months ago, the Commission contacted my office to tell me 
that its whistleblower program is facing the prospect of a sudden cash 
shortage--one that could require it to furlough staff and even close 
down its operations.
  The reason for this potential shortage isn't that the whistleblower 
program has wasted or mismanaged funds or that it hasn't been doing its 
job. It is just the exact opposite. Whistleblowers have been 
approaching the Commission to report actionable claims of wrongdoing in 
far greater numbers than before, and its whistleblower program has 
grown at a much faster rate than Congress expected when we created it 
in 2010.
  Last year, the Commission issued a single whistleblower award for 
approximately $9 million. In the past, it has given out awards for as 
much as $30 million. Remember, this is money given out to find out 
about fraud so people can be punished, bringing money into the Federal 
Treasury.
  As a result of these successes, in the near future the Commission 
faces the possibility of having to pay out several large whistleblower 
awards in close succession. Now, if that happens, the whistleblower 
program could run short of having the cash on hand that it needs to pay 
these awards and other office operating expenses. Again, this is not an 
issue of bad management. It just means that the program works better 
than we thought when we enacted it in 2010.
  By law, the Commission is only allowed to keep a certain amount of 
cash on hand to pay out awards, and that amount is capped under 
existing law at $100 million. Because Congress expected the program to 
remain relatively small, which it has not, it set the cap for the 
Consumer Protection Fund lower than the cap it has set for larger 
whistleblower programs, such as the one at the Securities and Exchange 
Commission.
  The Consumer Protection Fund is also used to pay the operating 
expenses of the Whistleblower Office--in other words, the employees 
that follow up on these fraudulent claims.
  Increasing the cap will ensure that the Commission can keep enough of 
the proceeds from the fines it collects on hand to pay whistleblower 
awards and also to ensure that the program itself doesn't run out of 
money.
  In 2019, I introduced the Whistleblower Programs Improvement Act, 
which increased the cap on the fund and made several additional 
improvements to the program, including provisions that would allow the 
Commission greater flexibility to share information with law 
enforcement.
  I did this because I realized that as the awards became bigger and 
more frequent, it was only a matter of time before the Commission would 
run into trouble. A year later, my prediction came true, and the 
Commission itself notified me of their impending money problems--those 
same money problems I am talking about.
  I introduced a bipartisan bill, along with Senators Hassan, Ernst, 
and Baldwin, in December, just a few months ago, to quickly address 
this problem. I worked with then-Chairman Roberts and then-Ranking 
Member Stabenow to include language that would have made the most 
critical updates for the program in last year's omnibus. These updates 
would have ensured that the Whistleblower Office could keep enough 
funds on hand to pay upcoming whistleblower awards and continue to fund 
the operation and to pay for staff.
  What often happens around here is that this effort, unfortunately, 
also hit a roadblock, and the language wasn't included by the House of 
Representatives. Now, 2 months have passed since then and a matter that 
was already urgent in December has become even more critical right now.
  The Commission told my office they have now completely stopped work 
on four cases, and these four cases potentially would have large 
awards. And if they get these large awards, it could bankrupt the fund. 
It is now a conflict of interest for staff who are still paid to even 
work on those cases because they know if they were to approve the large 
awards, it could mean putting themselves out of a job. That is totally 
unacceptable. Whistleblowers shouldn't have to wait just because 
Congress has been dragging its feet on this issue. That is why I 
reintroduced my bill and ask my colleagues to support this legislation 
to fix the cap and to protect this very successful whistleblower 
program.

  This is a stand-alone bill, a very short and simple bill. It 
increases the cap on the Customer Protection Fund from $100 million to 
$150 million and requires that funds needed for the operating expenses 
of the Whistleblower Office be held in a separate account to ensure 
that the Whistleblower Office will have the resources it needs to 
continue employment of staff while the amount in the Customer 
Protection Fund builds to a higher level.
  Allowing this successful Whistleblower Office to close simply because 
it is doing its job--a job well done--is unacceptable to me, and I hope 
it is unacceptable to the other 99 Members of this Congress. We ought 
to be able to get this bill passed quickly so that we can keep this 
successful whistleblower program going to protect the customers. It 
ought to be unacceptable, then, to every Member of this Congress. It is 
important that we act now to ensure that this doesn't happen. That is 
why I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
bipartisan legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 294

  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, today I rise to ask that the Senate grant 
unanimous consent to pass a bill that restores parents' rights to be 
part of medical decisions for their children.
  More than 70 percent of Americans agree that parents should have the 
legal right to stop an abortion from being performed on their minor 
child. Consequently, more than half of the States have laws on the 
books that require some form of parental notification. Unfortunately, 
the State laws cannot be fully enforced when children travel over State 
lines or abortion providers assist minors in circumventing State laws.

[[Page S986]]

  More troubling, evidence has surfaced in recent years that abortion 
clinic staff deliberately fail to report suspected cases of statutory 
rape as required by Federal law. In some cases, staff even help to hide 
these crimes from parents and law enforcement
  An undercover operation revealed that a disturbing 91 percent of 
Planned Parenthood employees agreed to help conceal an instance of 
statuary rape when a caller posing as a 13-year-old girl indicated she 
wanted to conceal a relationship with a 22-year-old boyfriend by 
getting an abortion. This too often means that children seeking 
abortions are left alone and vulnerable when making a very difficult 
decision.
  My bill, the Parental Notification and Intervention Act, would combat 
the troubling trend that cuts parents out of medical decisionmaking. 
The bill prohibits an abortion provider from performing an abortion on 
an unemancipated child without written notification to parents. This 
creates legal protections for parents and ensures that children are not 
left alone or unsupported when making difficult medical decisions with 
long-lasting consequences.
  Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further 
consideration of S. 294 and the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the 
majority of the minors who become pregnant tell their parents about the 
pregnancy even when they plan to seek an abortion. But it is not always 
possible or even advisable that a parent be informed. For some minors, 
telling their parents that they were sexually active, let alone 
pregnant, can lead to physical abuse. It can lead to those minors being 
thrown out of their homes. One study found that 45 percent of young 
people who did not seek advice from their parents about a pregnancy 
experienced significant negative consequences--such as punishment, 
abuse, being forced out of their home--when their parents found out.
  By requiring that parents of minors seeking an abortion be notified 
and setting the bar for an exception to this rule at a nearly 
insurmountable level, this bill ignores this reality of what might 
happen to these young people. In doing so, it turns an already 
difficult decision for a young person into an almost impossible one. It 
puts minors' health and safety at risk while doing nothing to 
strengthen families.
  This is made clear by the fact that all of the major medical 
organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American 
Academy of Pediatrics, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the 
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American 
Public Health Association--all of these groups oppose laws like this 
one that mandate parental involvement in minors' abortion decisions.
  Let's be clear. This is yet another partisan attack on a woman's 
constitutionally-protected right to choose. It is completely 
unnecessary and distracts from the important work the Senate is doing 
right now to deliver urgently needed COVID relief.
  For these reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's objection is heard

                          ____________________