[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 133 (Thursday, July 29, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5179-S5180]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Klobuchar,
Mr. Wyden, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Carper, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Durbin,
Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Markey, Mr. Warner, Mr.
Ossoff, and Mr. Bennet):
S. 2532. A bill to provide protections for employees of, former
employees of, and applicants for employment with Federal agencies,
contractors, and grantees whose right to petition or furnish
information to Congress is interfered with or denied; to the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN: Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation
to strengthen protections for federal whistleblowers who share valuable
information with Congress.
In the last four years, we have seen a major erosion of
accountability in Government. From the firing of multiple inspectors
general to the willful misinterpretation of whistleblower protection
laws, it has become more difficult than ever to keep the Executive
branch honest.
Despite these chilling developments, many whistleblowers still come
forward to ensure Congress could hold the powerful accountable. For
example, in the 116th Congress, Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, a senior
official at the National Security Council, shared credible information
with Congress that the President of the United States tried to entice
the Ukrainian President to launch a sham investigation into then-
candidate Biden. Vindman's actions directly led to Donald Trump's first
impeachment trial, a watershed moment for our democracy.
Whistleblowers like Vindman should be protected from retaliation.
Unfortunately, while current law specifies that the right to report to
Congress must not to be interfered with or denied, it fails to provide
a remedy in the event this happens. As a result, whistleblowers have no
meaningful protection from retaliation.
My bill would solve this problem by expanding administrative remedies
to all taxpayer-funded employees, including intelligence employees,
whose right to report to Congress has been interfered with or denied.
It also gives Federal employees the right to file a lawsuit after
exhausting administrative remedies, for which they can seek a wide
range of relief, including lost wages and reinstatement to their former
positions.
Whistleblowers are critical to the proper functioning of government.
They enable Congress to conduct oversight, root out waste, fraud, and
abuse, and hold accountable those who violate the public trust. It is
incumbent on us, as members of Congress, to ensure whistle blowers can
report to us without fearing retribution.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I also ask unanimous
consent that a copy of the bill be included in the Record.
S. 2532
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 ``Congressional
Whistleblower Protection Act of 2021''.
SEC. 2. PROTECTIONS FOR COVERED INDIVIDUALS.
Section 7211 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``The right of employees'' and inserting
the following:
``(a) In General.--The right of covered individuals'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Remedies.--
``(1) Administrative remedies.--
``(A) In general.--A covered individual with respect to a
Federal agency (other than a covered individual described in
subparagraph (B), (C), or (D)) who is aggrieved by a
violation of subsection (a) may seek corrective action under
sections 1214 and 1221 in the same manner as an individual
who is aggrieved by a prohibited personnel practice described
in section 2302(b)(8).
``(B) FBI employees.--A covered individual with respect
to the Federal Bureau of Investigation who is aggrieved by a
violation of subsection (a) may seek corrective action under
section 2303.
``(C) Intelligence community employees.--A covered
individual with respect to a covered intelligence community
element (as defined in section 1104(a) of the National
Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3234(a))) who is aggrieved by
a violation of subsection (a) may seek corrective action
under section 1104 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50
U.S.C. 3234) or subsection (b)(7) or (j) of section 3001 of
that Act (50 U.S.C. 3341).
``(D) Contractor employees.--A covered individual with
respect to a Federal agency who is an employee of, former
employee of, or applicant for employment with, a contractor,
subcontractor, grantee, subgrantee, or personal services
contractor (as those terms are used in section 2409 of title
10 and section 4712 of title 41) of the agency and who is
aggrieved by a violation of subsection (a) of this section
may seek corrective action under section 2409 of title 10 or
section 4712 of title 41.
``(E) Burden of proof.--The burdens of proof under
subsection (e) of section 1221 shall apply to an allegation
of a violation of subsection (a) of this section made under
subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of this paragraph in the
same manner as those burdens of proof apply to an allegation
of a prohibited personnel practice under such section 1221.
``(F) Class of individuals entitled to seek corrective
action.--The right to seek corrective action under
subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) shall apply to a covered
individual who is an employee of, former employee of, or
applicant for employment with, a Federal agency described in
the applicable subparagraph or a contractor, subcontractor,
grantee, subgrantee, or personal services contractor (as
those terms are used in section 2409 of title 10 and section
4712 of title 41) of such a Federal agency, notwithstanding
the fact that a provision of law referenced in the applicable
subparagraph does not authorize one or more of those types of
covered individuals to seek corrective action.
``(2) Private right of action.--
``(A) In general.--If a final decision providing relief
for a violation of subsection (a) alleged under subparagraph
(A), (B), (C), or (D) of paragraph (1) of this subsection is
not issued within 210 days of the date on which the covered
individual seeks corrective action under the applicable
subparagraph and there is no showing that the delay is due to
the bad faith of the covered individual, the covered
individual may bring an action at law or equity for de novo
review in the appropriate district court of the United
States, which shall have jurisdiction over the action without
regard to the amount in controversy, for lost wages and
benefits, reinstatement, costs and attorney fees,
compensatory damages, equitable or injunctive relief, or any
other relief that the court considers appropriate.
``(B) Jury trial.--An action brought under subparagraph
(A) shall, upon the request of the covered individual, be
tried by the court with a jury.
``(C) Burden of proof.--The burdens of proof under
subsection (e) of section 1221 shall apply to an allegation
of a violation of subsection (a) of this section in an action
brought under this paragraph in the same manner as those
burdens of proof apply to an allegation of a prohibited
personnel practice under such section 1221.
``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) the term `covered individual', with respect to a
Federal agency, means an employee of, former employee of, or
applicant for employment with--
``(A) the agency; or
``(B) a contractor, subcontractor, grantee, subgrantee,
or personal services contractor (as those terms are used in
section
[[Page S5180]]
2409 of title 10 and section 4712 of title 41) of the agency;
and
``(2) the term `Federal agency' means an agency, office,
or other establishment in the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Federal Government.''.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Padilla):
S. 2537. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a credit for previously-owned qualified plug-in electric drive motor
vehicles; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
``Affordable EVs for Working Families Act of 2021.''
This bill is an important measure that will ensure more widespread,
equitable adoption of electric vehicles by creating a tax credit for
buyers of pre-owned electric vehicles, similar to the tax credit that
exists for purchasers of new electric vehicles.
Starting now, and over the next several decades, the United States
must take swift, decisive action to reduce our carbon emissions--
especially from the transportation sector, which makes up one-third of
all U.S. carbon emissions.
I am proud to say that California has led the way in the adoption of
low- and zero-emission vehicles for several decades by incentivizing
the development and purchase of electric and hybrid electric vehicles,
and setting high fuel economy standards that 13 States have opted to
follow.
According to research released just last month by the Pew Research
Center, California has by far the highest share of electric vehicles of
any State in the Nation--on average, 12 electric vehicles registered
per 1,000 people.
As a result, California now has the largest pre-owned electric
vehicle market in the nation. Sales for pre-owned electric vehicles in
California have grown significantly in recent years.
However, a study released just last month by Energy Innovation found
that for lower-income households, the up-front costs of purchasing an
electric vehicle presents an especially large hurdle, despite the long-
term cost savings that they offer, such as on gas and maintenance.
Transportation is the second-largest expense for all U.S. households,
but presents a particular burden for lower-income households--
suggesting that incentives for pre-owned buyers targeted toward lower
and middle-income communities can increase adoption of electric
vehicles in those communities significantly, and further accelerate
overall adoption.
We cannot miss an opportunity to ensure that as we electrify our
transportation sector, electric vehicles become an option for all
families--not just those who can afford new ones.
My bill would do just that.
My bill would provide a $2,500 tax credit to purchasers of preowned
electric vehicles, similar to the credit already offered to purchasers
of new electric vehicles. The credit only applies to vehicles that cost
$25,000 or less, and would be phased down for buyers whose adjusted
gross income exceeds $75,000 per year for individuals and $150,000 for
joint filers.
My bill also includes critical safeguards such as a vehicle
identification number reporting requirements and a 2-year previous
ownership requirement to ensure that any attempted fraud is quickly
caught.
I would like to thank Congressmen Jimmy Gomez who is introducing the
House companion to this bill, and has carried this effort in the House,
along with Congressman Mike Thompson who included a similar provision
in the House clean energy tax incentives package, the GREEN Act.
I would also like to thank the Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power, California Air Resources Board, our utilities and other
California localities that have led the way on this policy by offering
their own rebates for pre-owned electric vehicles.
Now, with the Senate considering historic investments in electric
vehicles and charging infrastructure, it is time for the federal
government to follow California's lead and ensure that buyers of pre-
owned vehicles receive a tax credit similar to the one for buyers of
new EVs.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
______
By Ms. HIRONO (for herself, Mr. Whitehouse, Mrs. Murray, and Mr.
Durbin):
S. 2553. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to protect
employees of the Federal judiciary from discrimination, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Judiciary
Accountability Act of 2021. I thank Representatives Johnson, Speier,
Nadler, Torres, and Mace, along with my cosponsors, Senators
Whitehouse, Murray, and Durbin, for working with me to finally ensure
that employees of the Federal judiciary have strong statutory rights
and protections against discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation,
and other forms of workplace misconduct.
More than 30,000 people work in the Federal judiciary. As with any
organization of this size, the judiciary is not immune from workplace
misconduct.
Over the years, however, a variety of factors have worked together to
prevent instances of workplace misconduct within the judiciary from
coming to light. There is a unique power imbalance between the Federal
judges who sit atop this vast organization and the clerks, staffers,
and other employees who rely on connections and recommendations to
advance their careers. The cloak of confidentiality ensures what
happens in chambers stays in chambers. And, perhaps most important,
there is a lack of legal recourse available to judicial employees who
are denied even the most fundamental workplace protections. Indeed, the
Federal judiciary is one of the few employers--private or public--whose
employees are not protected by state or federal civil rights laws.
Despite all these reasons to keep quiet, a number of victims have
bravely come forward to report serious harassment by Federal judges
over the past several years. In December 2017, six former law clerks
and staffers accused Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski of subjecting
them to a range of inappropriate sexual conduct and comments. In
September 2019, the Tenth Circuit Judicial Council issued an order
finding that District Court Judge Carlos Murguia had harassed multiple
employees over a period of years, including by subjecting them to
sexually suggestive comments; inappropriate text messages; and
excessive, non-work-related contact. In February 2020, a former law
clerk to the late-Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt accused the
judge of a months-long harassment campaign.
In the face of this egregious misconduct and Congressional pressure,
the federal judiciary has taken only small, limited steps to protect
its employees. It is not enough.
The Judiciary Accountability Act fills the void left by the
judiciary's inaction and extends to judicial branch employees the same
anti-discrimination rights and remedies other government sector
employees and private sector workers have had for decades. It also goes
further. Among other things, it would create an Office of Judicial
Integrity to administer a nationwide, confidential reporting system;
establish a Special Counsel for Equal Employment Opportunity empowered
to investigate all workplace misconduct complaints; form an Office of
Employee Advocacy to assist in judicial branch employees in matters
relating to workplace discrimination and harassment; protect
whistleblowers by prohibiting retaliation; and establish a
comprehensive workplace misconduct prevention program.
These reforms are not only necessary, they are long overdue. I
therefore encourage my colleagues to support the Judiciary
Accountability Act.
____________________