Floor Statements

Mr. President, Social Security provides vital benefits to millions of Americans who work and pay into the system with each paycheck. Because Social Security is fundamental to workers' retirement security, the law protected benefits from creditors. The only exceptions were unpaid Federal taxes, child support or alimony payments, and court-ordered victim restitution. These protections ensured that the social safety net programs would be there for basic needs. That protection was weakened over 20 years ago when the law was changed. Now, more and more seniors face cuts in their Social Security benefits because of student loan debts. The Wall Street Journal recently highlighted the issue with an article titled, ``Over 60, and Crushed by Student Loan Debt.'' We need to take action to restore the strong protections to Social Security and other benefit programs.

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 recent data from the U.S. Bureau of Fiscal Service, over 167,000 Americans had their benefits garnished for student loan debt. Those 167,000 had nearly $200 million garnished from their earned benefits. This is just the tip of the iceberg as more Americans start receiving benefits. Between 2008 and 2018, the number of individuals whose Social Security benefits were offset to pay student loans debt increased by 133 percent, from about 72,000 to 169,000. Over that same period, the amount collected from Social Security benefits ballooned from almost $63 million to nearly $200 million, a 217 percent increase.

Social Security plays a critical role in keeping seniors and people with disabilities out of poverty. In Oregon alone, Social Security cuts the poverty rate of the elderly from about 35 percent to 5 percent. However, despite Social Security's critical role in the safety net, close to 1 out of every 10 seniors over age 65 and 1 in 5 disabled workers still live in poverty and that is simply unacceptable.

I, along with Senators Brown, Whitehouse, Leahy, Warren, Hirano, Sanders, Gillibrand, Merkley, and Schatz are reintroducing the Protection of Social Security Benefits Restoration Act. The bill would restore the strong protections in the law that prevented the government from taking earned benefits to pay Federal non-tax debts, and help ensure beneficiaries will be able to maintain a basic standard of living. The bill is supported by AARP, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, National Association of Disability Representatives, AFL-CIO, National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives, Social Security Works, National Organization for Women, Justice in Aging, American Federation of Teachers, Alliance for Retired Americans, Economic Policy Institute.

I ask Unanimous Consent that a letter from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare endorsing our bill be printed in the Record.

May 15, 2019.

Hon. Ron Wyden,

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Wyden: On behalf of the millions of members

and supporters of the National Committee to Preserve Social

Security and Medicare, I write to endorse your bill the

``Protection of Social Security Benefits Restoration Act.''

Since the inception of the Social Security program in 1935,

the Social Security Act provided strong protections against

loss of retirement income through the garnishment or

attachment of Social Security benefits for the purpose of

recovering debts owed by retirees. For decades the law

provided near iron-clad protection against impoverishment in

old age due to debt collection.

Unfortunately, in 1996 the Congress reversed course by

authorizing the garnishment of Social Security and other

earned benefits for the purpose of collecting debts owed by

seniors to the federal government. Figuring prominently in

this matter is the recovery of student loan debts from

seniors who are living on their all-too-modest monthly Social

Security benefits.

With student loan debt becoming an increasingly serious

problem in this country, we agree with you that now is the

time to act. The Congress must restore the historic

protections that once were provided by Social Security

against the spectacle of impoverishment in old age so that

the federal government can collect debts that all too often

were incurred years, even decades ago.

For these reasons, the National Committee endorses your

bill, the ``Protection of Social Security Benefits

Restoration Act,'' and urges other members of the United

States Senate to cosponsor this vitally important measure. We

thank you for your leadership on this matter and look forward

to working with you to enact this bill.

Sincerely,

Max Richtman,

President and CEO, 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.

Mr. President, Oregonians have a strong interest in using biomass as a source of renewable fuels. This desire, coupled with how well we grow biomass in Oregon, creates the opportunity to use carefully selected wood waste as a source for cleaner transportation fuel. If we do it right, this effort will lead to healthier forests, more carbon sequestration, cleaner transportation fuels as compared to traditional gasolines, and protected old growth forests.

Current law excludes the use of federal biomass in the making of renewable fuels as defined by the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The bill being introduced today eliminates that exclusion.

In addition to being an energy matter, this is an important forest management issue. Over many decades there has been an unnatural buildup of woody material on the forest floor. It becomes fuel for catastrophic wildfires. For months, each summer, Oregonians in every corner of the state, from Astoria to Adel and from Medford to Madras, suffer from smokey skies, hazardous air quality, and the almost constant threat that a wildfire may burn down their homes. In the eastern portion of the state, invasive species like juniper trees pose challenges, on both private and public lands--lowering water tables, posing fire risks, and encroaching on sage grouse habitat. It is time we stopped putting our heads in the sand, hoping the environmental ship will right itself.

Instead, this excess woody biomass should be contributing to U.S. energy independence by being converted to transportation or electricity fuels. This bill makes that economically feasible. It would make it more cost efficient for private landowners to remove low-value brush, like juniper. The bill also helps pay for programs to reduce dead and dying trees that fuel catastrophic wildfires and helps thin out unhealthy second-growth forests. The bill ensures that all residuals from the milling process and certain biomass from national forests and BLM forests qualify for the RFS standards.

Importantly, under this new definition biomass materials harvested from federal lands must be done so in accordance with all federal laws, regulations, and land-use plans and designations. In addition, the bill pays specific attention to biomass removal from insect and disease ridden forests and wildfire prone areas. And, to ensure environmental problems are being solved, not created, the bill restricts the types of biomass materials that can be harvested from federal lands so that old growth trees and stands will continue to be protected.

At the end of the day, the small diameter trees, the limbs, the debris, even sawdust at the mill presents real opportunities to generate green energy, generate green jobs, lower wildfire risks in rural areas across the country, and better position the United States to meet the RFS.

There is a lot of bipartisan support for the biomass definition in this bill. It balances sound energy policy with sound environmental policy.

I want to thank my colleagues Senators Risch, King, Crapo, and Merkley for joining me on this important bill.

Mr. President, Oregonians have a strong interest in using biomass as a source of renewable fuels. This desire, coupled with how well we grow biomass in Oregon, creates the opportunity to use carefully selected wood waste as a source for cleaner transportation fuel. If we do it right, this effort will lead to healthier forests, more carbon sequestration, cleaner transportation fuels as compared to traditional gasolines, and protected old growth forests.

Current law excludes the use of federal biomass in the making of renewable fuels as defined by the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The bill being introduced today eliminates that exclusion.

In addition to being an energy matter, this is an important forest management issue. Over many decades there has been an unnatural buildup of woody material on the forest floor. It becomes fuel for catastrophic wildfires. For months, each summer, Oregonians in every corner of the state, from Astoria to Adel and from Medford to Madras, suffer from smokey skies, hazardous air quality, and the almost constant threat that a wildfire may burn down their homes. In the eastern portion of the state, invasive species like juniper trees pose challenges, on both private and public lands--lowering water tables, posing fire risks, and encroaching on sage grouse habitat. It is time we stopped putting our heads in the sand, hoping the environmental ship will right itself.

Instead, this excess woody biomass should be contributing to U.S. energy independence by being converted to transportation or electricity fuels. This bill makes that economically feasible. It would make it more cost efficient for private landowners to remove low-value brush, like juniper. The bill also helps pay for programs to reduce dead and dying trees that fuel catastrophic wildfires and helps thin out unhealthy second-growth forests. The bill ensures that all residuals from the milling process and certain biomass from national forests and BLM forests qualify for the RFS standards.

Importantly, under this new definition biomass materials harvested from federal lands must be done so in accordance with all federal laws, regulations, and land-use plans and designations. In addition, the bill pays specific attention to biomass removal from insect and disease ridden forests and wildfire prone areas. And, to ensure environmental problems are being solved, not created, the bill restricts the types of biomass materials that can be harvested from federal lands so that old growth trees and stands will continue to be protected.

At the end of the day, the small diameter trees, the limbs, the debris, even sawdust at the mill presents real opportunities to generate green energy, generate green jobs, lower wildfire risks in rural areas across the country, and better position the United States to meet the RFS.

There is a lot of bipartisan support for the biomass definition in this bill. It balances sound energy policy with sound environmental policy.

I want to thank my colleagues Senators Risch, King, Crapo, and Merkley for joining me on this important bill.

Mr. President, while she is on the floor, I want to commend my northwest colleague and friend, Senator Murray, for all of her leadership, constantly coming to the floor and leading us on this enormous health challenge--a challenge that is really existential for so many women across the country.

Right now in State capitals across the land, Republican lawmakers are passing extreme bills that throw in the trash can 45 years of settled law on reproductive health. This is an open, coordinated attack on Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose the healthcare she needs. These Republican lawmakers are passing bills that are not only harmful, but they are overwhelmingly opposed by the public--bills with harsh criminal penalties for women and doctors, bills with no exceptions for cases of rape or incest, bills that explicitly compare women getting medical care to the Holocaust. Let me repeat that--bills that explicitly compare women getting medical care to the Holocaust.

I want to be clear on what this is all about. The party of Donald Trump is insisting on government control of women's bodies. That is what is on the table in Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, and elsewhere-- government control of women's bodies.

Millions of women across the land are watching in anger and in fear as all of this is playing out. I have heard from many of them back home in Oregon. I heard it last weekend. I have four town meetings in the rural part of Oregon coming up; I am going to hear it again. Women are afraid for the future--their future and their family's future--because they know what is at stake with this coordinated attack on their rights.

First, it puts women's lives in danger.

The reality is, abortions will still happen in States that pass these laws, but those abortions will happen later, and they will be unsafe. Women are going to die. That is a fact. Women are going to die because of these restrictions. If you need proof, just look at the figures before and after the Roe case. In the decades before Roe, thousands of women died due to unsafe abortions. And those are only the ones people know about. That doesn't even take into consideration the unnamed, the unknown victims of those misguided policies. After Roe was decided in 1973, women's healthcare got safer. Now, once again, there is an effort to undermine that safety of women.

Second, in key ways, the future these restrictive laws are creating is worse for women and healthcare professionals than before Roe.

What we are talking about now is jailing doctors for life. We are talking about treating women like hardened criminals after they get a medical procedure. Women in some places are facing the prospect that they may need to report miscarriages to the government or they could wind up in prison.

The other side in this debate paints a picture of women exercising their right to choose that is unfair and unrealistic. These are incredibly difficult choices. Many women exercising the right to choose have just been hit with the most devastating medical news that prospective parents can face. It is not up to State lawmakers and government bureaucrats to step in and interfere with this intensely private and personal choice, but that is exactly what is on offer with the laws being passed in statehouses across the land. These laws bind and punish women with a level of government control that did not exist before Roe. This is right out of nightmarish fiction. It is a coordinated attack on women's rights that is cruel and dangerous.

Abortion and other reproductive decisions are healthcare, and healthcare choices ought to be made by women with the help of doctors they trust, not by the Federal Government and not by State lawmakers-- women and doctors. That is it. Full stop.

My Democratic colleagues and I want to thank Senator Murray and Senator Shaheen, who have been such advocates for women's healthcare for many years in public service. They are here.

We are all going to be part of this effort that I am proud to join in to fight at the Federal level with everything we have to stand up for women's right to make intensely personal choices, and we are going to be joining those women across the land who are standing up and fighting with everything they have.

The government should not have control of women's bodies--end of story.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I want to recognize and honor Parkrose High School coach and security guard Keanon Lowe for his heroism during the school day on May 17, 2019.

When Mr. Lowe spotted an armed student in a classroom in the northeast Portland high school, he bravely tackled the student, wrestled away the gun, and held the student until police arrived. Mr. Lowe may have saved the lives of countless students, teachers, and administrators at Parkrose.

In Mr. Lowe's own words the day after the incident, ``When I signed up to be a security guard, football and track and field coach for Parkrose High School, I did so to guide and coach young people whose shoes I had once been in. I had no idea that I would one day have to put my life on the line like I did yesterday for my students.''

Mr. Lowe is no stranger to the spotlight. Before becoming the football and track coach at Parkrose, Mr. Lowe was a standout football player in Oregon at Jesuit High School and then the University of Oregon, U of O, ``Go Ducks!''

As an U of O alumnus, I witnessed Mr. Lowe's standout play both in Autzen Stadium in Eugene and in the 2015 national championship game against the Ohio State University.

All Ducks fans know Mr. Lowe as a champion on the field, and now all of Oregon and the country, know him as a hero off the field.

Mr. Lowe's heroics saved the day on a Friday morning just before noon. Students, teachers, and administrators at Parkrose, as well as their loved ones, are incredibly grateful that Mr. Lowe prevented what could have been a tragedy in my hometown.

Sadly, far too many schools in my State and across America have not been so fortunate in the past few decades. Gun violence in schools has essentially created a ``lockdown generation'' of students whose happy memories of high school dances, games, plays, and other activities jostle alongside memories of lockdown drills and, in far too many instances, violent gunmen.

Again, in Mr. Lowe's own words, ``I'm blessed to be alive and extremely happy that the students are safe. I'm not sure what's next, I haven't had the time to really think about it. But I am sure I want to be a part of the solution to school gun violence.''

I am grateful that Mr. Lowe prevented the worst on May 17, 2019, and welcome his commitment to be a teammate in reducing the chances of gun tragedies in every school in America.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Federal Campaign Cybersecurity Assistance Act of 2019--a bulky name for a bill that attempts to do a simply stated thing: protect our democracy from foreign cyber attacks. This bill allows the national campaign committees to provide much-needed cybersecurity assistance to State political parties, Federal campaign offices' staffs, and Federal candidates' personal accounts and devices.

In 2015 and 2016, hackers working for the Russian government penetrated the networks of the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The hackers also compromised the email account of Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign manager, John Podesta. The Russian government subsequently leaked and weaponized Democratic party and campaign emails in order to influence the outcome of several elections--most publicly, the presidential race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, but also U.S. House of Representatives races in Illinois, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Hackers also targeted Republicans during the same period, but were less successful in their efforts.

The impact of Russia's hacking-enabled influence campaign was a surprise to many. However, this was not the first time that a foreign government hacked into the campaign organization of someone running to be President of the United States. Senior officials from the 2008 Obama and McCain presidential campaigns have publicly confirmed that both organizations were compromised by hackers. In an interview with NBC News 2013, Dennis Blair, who served as President Obama's Director of National Intelligence between 2009 and 2010 stated that ``Based on everything I know, this was a case of political cyber-espionage by the Chinese government against the two American political parties. They were looking for positions on China, surprises that might be rolled out by campaigns against China.''

In recent years, the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and the the National Republican Congressional Committee have all been hacked, as well as the campaigns of Senators Graham and McCain. Both major political parties have suffered hacks, and will undoubtedly continue to be targeted by foreign governments and other sophisticated hackers.

Over the past two years, Congress has turned its attention to several weaknesses in our democracy that were exploited by Russia including the role of social media companies and long-standing flaws in paperless voting machines used in several states. While these issues have yet to be meaningfully addressed, they have, at least, been the subject of oversight hearings and legislative proposals in Congress. In contrast, Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on the vulnerability of political parties and campaigns to hacking by foreign governments, nor has anyone else in Congress introduced legislation to help defend these organizations from cyber attacks.

For the sake of the integrity of the American political process, I introduce this bill today to protect those running for office, and the organizations that support them, from cyber attacks. Russia's hacking and leaking of emails in 2016 is now well documented. Their efforts continue. If you think they aren't working towards the 2020 federal elections as hard as any cub reporter in Iowa, you'd be sadly mistaken. And they are likely NOT alone. Other hostile governments will undoubtedly seek to emulate and improve on Russia's tactics.

Congress has acted in the past to protect those running for office from serious threats. After Senator Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1968, Congress authorized the Secret Service to protect Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. In extending Secret Service protection to candidates, Congress recognized that the threats to Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates required professional protection. Congress must now take action to protect candidates for Federal office--and consequently, our democracy--from another serious threat: hacking by foreign governments.

The political parties are best of the available options to provide cybersecurity to campaigns. Politicians are already dependent upon the parties for fundraising, advertising, polling, messaging, and other forms of support. Giving parties the responsibility to provide cybersecurity does not make politicians dependent on help from a new entity. Parties are also responsible to politicians they protect, moreso at least than any other government, corporate, or non-profit entity.

Quite simply, this bill gives the national campaign committees the role of the ``IT Department'' for state parties, campaigns, and candidates. The committees will be able to provide these entities with securely configured laptops and cellphones, professionally administered email, encrypted messaging, and collaboration software, and if necessary, hire third-party cybersecurity experts to help in the event of a successful hack.

This bill also permits the national parties to provide this assistance with money they raise in their ``building fund.'' The building fund is one of three supplementary accounts through which Congress permitted the national campaign committees to raise an additional $100,000 per individual, per year, to pay for the cost of presidential nominating conventions, national party headquarters buildings, and election recounts and other legal battles.

I know that some advocates have serious concerns about the building fund and the other supplementary accounts created by Congress in 2014. I share these concerns, and have long supported bold reforms of our campaign finance system. However, the current Senate is extremely unlikely to pass legislation creating public financing of elections anytime soon, and so while we have the current system, permitting the use of money in the building fund for cybersecurity appears to be the least bad option. Most importantly, this approach does not permit the parties to raise any new funds--it merely permits a new use of money raised through the building fund.

I am not the only one to recognize the severity of the cyber threat aimed at political parties. Earlier this year, the Canadian agency responsible for government cybersecurity, the Communications Security Establishment, issued a lengthy report on threats to elections, which noted that that ``Globally, political parties, candidates, and their staff remain attractive targets for cyber threat activity.'' Likewise, the Maryland Board of Elections published guidance last week, recognizing

that ``Campaigns are a potential cyber target,'' and consequently permitted state political parties to provide additional cybersecurity assistance to campaigns.

November 2020 gets closer by the day. Congress cannot wait any longer to protect state parties, campaigns, and the candidates themselves from sophisticated cyber attacks. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to promptly act on this legislation, and to secure our democracy from cyber threats before it is too late.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Federal Campaign Cybersecurity Assistance Act of 2019--a bulky name for a bill that attempts to do a simply stated thing: protect our democracy from foreign cyber attacks. This bill allows the national campaign committees to provide much-needed cybersecurity assistance to State political parties, Federal campaign offices' staffs, and Federal candidates' personal accounts and devices.

In 2015 and 2016, hackers working for the Russian government penetrated the networks of the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The hackers also compromised the email account of Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign manager, John Podesta. The Russian government subsequently leaked and weaponized Democratic party and campaign emails in order to influence the outcome of several elections--most publicly, the presidential race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, but also U.S. House of Representatives races in Illinois, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Hackers also targeted Republicans during the same period, but were less successful in their efforts.

The impact of Russia's hacking-enabled influence campaign was a surprise to many. However, this was not the first time that a foreign government hacked into the campaign organization of someone running to be President of the United States. Senior officials from the 2008 Obama and McCain presidential campaigns have publicly confirmed that both organizations were compromised by hackers. In an interview with NBC News 2013, Dennis Blair, who served as President Obama's Director of National Intelligence between 2009 and 2010 stated that ``Based on everything I know, this was a case of political cyber-espionage by the Chinese government against the two American political parties. They were looking for positions on China, surprises that might be rolled out by campaigns against China.''

In recent years, the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and the the National Republican Congressional Committee have all been hacked, as well as the campaigns of Senators Graham and McCain. Both major political parties have suffered hacks, and will undoubtedly continue to be targeted by foreign governments and other sophisticated hackers.

Over the past two years, Congress has turned its attention to several weaknesses in our democracy that were exploited by Russia including the role of social media companies and long-standing flaws in paperless voting machines used in several states. While these issues have yet to be meaningfully addressed, they have, at least, been the subject of oversight hearings and legislative proposals in Congress. In contrast, Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on the vulnerability of political parties and campaigns to hacking by foreign governments, nor has anyone else in Congress introduced legislation to help defend these organizations from cyber attacks.

For the sake of the integrity of the American political process, I introduce this bill today to protect those running for office, and the organizations that support them, from cyber attacks. Russia's hacking and leaking of emails in 2016 is now well documented. Their efforts continue. If you think they aren't working towards the 2020 federal elections as hard as any cub reporter in Iowa, you'd be sadly mistaken. And they are likely NOT alone. Other hostile governments will undoubtedly seek to emulate and improve on Russia's tactics.

Congress has acted in the past to protect those running for office from serious threats. After Senator Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1968, Congress authorized the Secret Service to protect Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. In extending Secret Service protection to candidates, Congress recognized that the threats to Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates required professional protection. Congress must now take action to protect candidates for Federal office--and consequently, our democracy--from another serious threat: hacking by foreign governments.

The political parties are best of the available options to provide cybersecurity to campaigns. Politicians are already dependent upon the parties for fundraising, advertising, polling, messaging, and other forms of support. Giving parties the responsibility to provide cybersecurity does not make politicians dependent on help from a new entity. Parties are also responsible to politicians they protect, moreso at least than any other government, corporate, or non-profit entity.

Quite simply, this bill gives the national campaign committees the role of the ``IT Department'' for state parties, campaigns, and candidates. The committees will be able to provide these entities with securely configured laptops and cellphones, professionally administered email, encrypted messaging, and collaboration software, and if necessary, hire third-party cybersecurity experts to help in the event of a successful hack.

This bill also permits the national parties to provide this assistance with money they raise in their ``building fund.'' The building fund is one of three supplementary accounts through which Congress permitted the national campaign committees to raise an additional $100,000 per individual, per year, to pay for the cost of presidential nominating conventions, national party headquarters buildings, and election recounts and other legal battles.

I know that some advocates have serious concerns about the building fund and the other supplementary accounts created by Congress in 2014. I share these concerns, and have long supported bold reforms of our campaign finance system. However, the current Senate is extremely unlikely to pass legislation creating public financing of elections anytime soon, and so while we have the current system, permitting the use of money in the building fund for cybersecurity appears to be the least bad option. Most importantly, this approach does not permit the parties to raise any new funds--it merely permits a new use of money raised through the building fund.

I am not the only one to recognize the severity of the cyber threat aimed at political parties. Earlier this year, the Canadian agency responsible for government cybersecurity, the Communications Security Establishment, issued a lengthy report on threats to elections, which noted that that ``Globally, political parties, candidates, and their staff remain attractive targets for cyber threat activity.'' Likewise, the Maryland Board of Elections published guidance last week, recognizing

that ``Campaigns are a potential cyber target,'' and consequently permitted state political parties to provide additional cybersecurity assistance to campaigns.

November 2020 gets closer by the day. Congress cannot wait any longer to protect state parties, campaigns, and the candidates themselves from sophisticated cyber attacks. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to promptly act on this legislation, and to secure our democracy from cyber threats before it is too late.

Madam President, I wish to pay tribute to J. Michael Keeling, a lifelong advocate for employee retirement benefits who believed in creating engaged workforces through Employee Stock Ownership Plans, or ESOPs.

A proud graduate of Harvard and the University of Texas School of Law, and a lifelong student of history, Mr. Keeling's support of ESOPs began in the 1970s when he served as chief of staff for former Congressman J.J. ``Jake'' Pickle, an ardent supporter of these plans.

When Mr. Keeling joined the ESOP Association, he distinguished himself as an outstanding advocate and lawyer on behalf of employees and their companies seeking to establish Employee Stock Ownership Plans during the 1980s.

In 1991, after serving as general counsel to the organization, Mr. Keeling was chosen by the ESOP Association's board of directors to lead its operations as president and chief staff officer. It was during his distinguished 28-year tenure in this position that many important achievements benefitting thousands of businesses and millions of employee owners took place.

Thanks to his efforts, the ESOP Association developed a nationwide network of chapters facilitating education, training, and networking among employee owners. These local groups help hundreds of companies better engage their employee owners and successfully navigate the often complex regulations guiding ESOPs.

Recognizing that good policy is predicated on good data, Mr. Keeling worked with the ESOP Association to establish the Employee Ownership Foundation to fund research on the economic and personal effects of ESOPs and broad-based employee ownership. Since its inception in 1997, the foundation has donated millions of dollars to fund academic research. Its support was the key factor in establishing the first academic center devoted specifically to employee ownership: the Institute for the Study of Employee Ownership and Profit Sharing, at Rutgers University.

Thanks to foundation-funded research, as a nation we now have clear evidence that companies with employee stock ownership are much more likely to withstand difficult economic times, more likely to invest in employee training, and are far less likely than conventionally owned firms to lay off employees. The foundation also has funded the academic study of dozens of fellows and researchers interested in employee ownership and its role in the U.S. economy.

During his tenure at the ESOP Association, Mr. Keeling visited nearly 600 ESOP companies. The breadth of insight he gained, coupled with his deep understanding of ERISA and tax law, made him a uniquely credible voice in the retirement plan community.

Mr. Keeling is retiring from his role as head of the ESOP Association this year, and I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing his longterm, passionate efforts to preserve and advance the retirement benefits of millions of working Americans.

Mr. President, today I have introduced the Retirement Parity for Student Loans Act. This legislation would permit employers to make matching contributions to workers under 401(k) and similar types of retirement plans as if worker student loan payments were salary reduction contributions to the retirement plan. This legislation will help workers who cannot afford to both save for retirement and pay off their student loan debt by providing them with employer contributions to build their retirement savings. This legislation is a common sense fix to our nation's laws that govern employer-sponsored retirement plans and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I have introduced the Retirement Parity for Student Loans Act. This legislation would permit employers to make matching contributions to workers under 401(k) and similar types of retirement plans as if worker student loan payments were salary reduction contributions to the retirement plan. This legislation will help workers who cannot afford to both save for retirement and pay off their student loan debt by providing them with employer contributions to build their retirement savings. This legislation is a common sense fix to our nation's laws that govern employer-sponsored retirement plans and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, before he leaves the floor, I just want to thank the chairman of the Finance Committee. I think the chairman said: Well, the ranking member might agree with some of my comments. I agree with every one of the chairman's comments.

I think, Madam President, how I would begin--and I think the Chairman would agree on this--we can have some pretty spirited debates about healthcare in this Chamber and in the Finance Committee, but, as the chairman indicated, there isn't an inch of difference with respect to our views on Robert Pear. We all thought he was a true professional, and he was the gold standard of journalism as it relates to healthcare.

I thought about yesterday, Chairman Grassley, because we had a hearing on a topic relating to reimbursement of physicians. I think the chairman and I would be of like mind--it probably wouldn't be inherently fascinating in every coffee shop in Iowa and Oregon, but it is incredibly important, for example, for the survival of rural hospitals and so many concerns that I know the Presiding Officer of the Senate has and the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee has. I looked over at the press table, Chairman Grassley, and the seat for Robert Pear was missing.

Robert Pear--and that was what this special man was all about--never jumped to sit in front and say: Well, I am from the New York Times, so I should count more. As the chairman remembers, he always sat in the back.

I thought we missed him so much yesterday. The chairman and I had just gotten the news. What we were talking about yesterday was what Robert Pear was all about--taking a very complicated issue that probably was not inherently fascinating and putting it in very simple, understandable, thoughtful words for the American people. As the chairman correctly said, that was what everybody would wait for when there was a complicated issue. You would hear it among Republicans, the chairman's staff, and my staff. People would hear about an issue, and very often, the first thing they would say was ``Did Robert Pear write about it?''

If Robert Pear wrote about it, it was important. In fact, one of the most noteworthy aspects of the incredible outpouring of affection and admiration for Robert Pear yesterday--and the chairman and I talked about it in committee--is the New York Times had a slug called ``Pear on Health,'' and all over the country, my guess is--the Des Moines Register; the Oregonian, my paper, a big paper in Oregon--they would all wait for the Robert Pear slug because they knew that was a very important issue.

The fact that Robert Pear wasn't at the witness table yesterday after all these years broke our hearts and brought back a lot of memories. I actually was stunned over the years--and the chairman touched on it--by his encyclopedic knowledge of healthcare. He remembered the amendment to the amendment to the amendment to the amendment that somebody offered 10 or 15 years ago.

When I came to the Congress, he went and studied the history of the Gray Panthers. I was codirector of the senior citizens group. My little one still wonders if they are the Pink Panthers. Robert Pear knew everything about that.

When he was up on the Hill--and the chairman probably remembers this--he had a little notebook in which he scribbled Chairman Grassley's remarks or my remarks or whoever he was talking to, but he also had bigger notebooks, and he kept an exhaustive set of files.

In a town where, particularly at important post-hearing or post- legislation events, all the reporters are shouting one above another, Robert Pear was the most soft-spoken voice in the room. In fact, I was at some events--my guess is that the chairman was as well--where it got kind of loud and frantic. They were throwing microphones and the like at you. When Robert Pear raised his hand and was called on, the room hushed. It went quiet because everybody understood that the question Robert Pear would ask was the right one.

Senator Grassley and I were talking yesterday about how we particularly appreciated and felt--Republicans and Democrats--that Robert Pear was fair to all sides, and he held us all accountable. The general sense was that if you were a legislator and you were going to be interviewed by Robert Pear, you better go out and do some serious prep work because he would know the subject inside-out and in that soft-spoken way would just stay at it until he excavated the real effects. That was part of the Pear ``tell the right story in the right way'' approach to ensure that if you read a Robert Pear health story, you learned something. I think most Senators would agree that is not always the case with every single story, but that was the standard Robert Pear set.

I think what I would like to say is that there are going to be a number of Senators who over the years had a chance to work with Robert Pear. We are going to hear their own accounts of their relationships, but we are not going to hear one single Senator--not one--say that Robert Pear tried to make them look bad, took a cheap shot, or tried to say something flashy in order to get a headline. They are going to say just the opposite. They are going to say: That is what journalism is supposed to be all about.

I am a journalist's kid and very proud of it. My dad was a first- generation Jewish kid. He taught himself English and was a journalist. He always said: ``Ron, the journalist's job is to ask the tough questions--the tough questions that really matter.''

Robert Pear asked the tough questions, no doubt about that, but he always did it in a very unique way, a fair way, a thoughtful way, a way that embodied the gold standard for journalism that I have described.

So yesterday was particularly sad. We got the news in the morning. We had that healthcare hearing, which started about an hour after we got the news. The first thing I thought of as I came into the room was how hard it is going to be--and it is not going to stop hurting for a long time--to imagine that seat at the end of the press table not having the thoughtful, informed Robert Pear sitting there so he could get the facts to the American people.

So I just want to close today--we have had a number of colleagues speak already--to say, Robert, Robert Pear, you were the consummate professional. You were fair to the bone. It was an honor--an honor to get to work with you over the years in healthcare. We say goodbye to someone who was a true mensch, and this afternoon with heavy hearts, we think of Robert Pear and want the country to know what an extraordinary person he was.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, on May 21, 2019, the U.S. Postal Service will release a series of postage stamps commemorating America's Wild and Scenic River system. These are America's remarkable rivers and streams unique for their free-flowing beauty, along with their contribution to recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, and countless other important benefits.

As we recognize the 50th anniversary of this landmark conservation law, I want to make a point that Oregon has always been a leader in protecting rivers and just this year added more than 250 miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers designations, increasing our miles of protected rivers from 1,916 to a grand total of over 2,170 miles. That gives Oregon the State with the most miles of Wild and Scenic River designations in the contiguous United States.

Three Oregon rivers are being recognized by the U.S. Postal Service in this commemorative stamp edition: the Deschutes, the Owyhee, and the Snake Rivers. Each is remarkable and unique in its own way, and together, these rivers embody Oregon's tradition of providing habitat for endangered salmon and steelhead, clean drinking water, and recreation opportunities for countless outdoor enthusiasts from all over the United States and the world.

One of these rivers, the Owyhee, carves its way through some of the harshest and most arid and remote landscape of Oregon's high desert in the easternmost parts of our State. The Owyhee River flows through a steep, eroded canyon with cliffs towering hundreds of feet above. Added to the Wild and Scenic Rivers system in 1984, this river is revered for its remarkable cultural, geologic, recreational, and scenic values. It is of particular historical significance to Tribes across Oregon, Idaho, and Nevada. Beyond its significance as a Wild and Scenic River, the Owyhee region is a critical lifeline to the rural economy of eastern Oregon and the local ranching community.

Moving westward to central Oregon, the Deschutes River is an oasis that winds through sandy, pumice-filled soils and sloping plateaus. A Wild and Scenic River since 1988, the Deschutes is world renowned for its fly fishing, rafting, and hiking opportunities. For centuries, Native Americans have honored the cultural and fishing uses of the river and venerated its historical value.

The final Oregon river honored in this series is back to the east in Oregon but north of the Owyhee: the mighty Snake River. It flows through Hells Canyon--the deepest gorge in North America--on the border between Idaho and Oregon. First designated a Wild and Scenic River in 1975, the Snake River holds significant cultural value for the people of the Shoshone and Nez

Perce Tribes. It also holds an important part of our State's history; emigrant pioneers risked their lives crossing the Snake in search of their future in Oregon. Pristine sections of this river and its stunning landscapes provide bountiful opportunities for salmon fishing, rafting, and exploration.

These Oregon rivers and others recognized by the U.S. Postal Service in these stamps contribute to the most stunning landscapes in the country and protect the very qualities that make America's and Oregon's natural treasures so incredible.

Madam President, the Senate is just hours away from voting on whether to confirm David Bernhardt to head the Interior Department. He would replace Ryan Zinke, who was forced from office in the eye of an ethical hurricane. I am here tonight to put the Senate on notice that I believe, if David Bernhardt is confirmed as Interior Secretary, another ethical storm will be on us in the very near future. The Zinke ethics hurricane was bad enough. America should not be harmed again if it is followed by a Bernhardt ethical typhoon.

I believe the Bernhardt nomination ought to be stopped in its tracks right here, right now. At a minimum, the Senate ought to put on hold this whole matter until we can gather more information so an informed decision can be based on all the facts.

At this moment, with the debate hurtling possibly toward an end, there are four pending requests by a dozen Senators, including myself, for inspector general investigations of the issues involving Mr. Bernhardt. In the other body, there are a host of requests for investigations as well. There has been a lot of speculation about how all of these issues have been aired.

This is old news, say some. The fact is, that is not right. This doesn't go back months. My concerns aren't information that has been sitting out in public view for years. The prospect of an investigation is developing in real time right now. I am going to run through some of the basic facts before getting into deeper details.

First, according to the Office of Government Ethics, Mr. Bernhardt has 27 different former clients who are posing a potential of unlimited numbers of conflicts of interests--oil clients, coal clients, water clients, major ag and resources clients. All of them have business before the Department that the Interior Secretary is supposed to be running for the benefit of the public, not for special interests.

My sense is, with all of these conflicts, Mr. Bernhardt would have basically two choices; one, he could comply with the ethics pledge and pretty much recuse himself from everything. Lord knows what he would be doing all day because he would have to recuse himself; or two, he would basically do business and just violate the ethical principles.

Lately, he seems to have been on what seems like a victory parade on Capitol Hill, touting what he says is a record of being a champion of ethics, but if you take a look at that record and take a look at what was said during his confirmation hearing, as my son William Peter Wyden, age 11--pictures available on my iPhone after my presentation-- would say, that Bernhardt statement was one big whopper.

Mr. Bernhardt served as Deputy Secretary to Ryan Zinke. All through this parade of environmental horrors that were visited upon us, Mr. Bernhardt was the key man in that office. There is not one shred of evidence that Mr. Bernhardt objected to Ryan Zinke's corruption. There is no evidence of it. Just think about it. He is always described as the guy who made the Interior Department run and that he was the key to all of these pieces. Ryan Zinke is out there with flagrant conflicts of interest and the like. Yet there is no evidence that Mr. Bernhardt--the self-styled expert on ethics--ever objected to anything.

Second, not even 2 weeks ago, Mr. Bernhardt came before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for his nomination. He admitted that he had a role in blocking a landmark scientific report on toxic pesticides--the kind of report that career, nonpartisan scientists and staff spend years developing in close consultation with Department lawyers. Mr. Bernhardt's excuse for blocking the report was that it needed to be ``read by the lawyers,'' and he gave the impression to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the country--people were following it on C-SPAN--he gave the impression, when he said it needed to be read by the lawyers, as though that was not already the routine. His claim doesn't pass the smell test. I believe he lied to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Third, let's talk about his lobbying. Mr. Bernhardt deregistered as a lobbyist to join the Trump transition team before the President's inauguration. There is evidence he kept right on lobbying, nonetheless, in violation of the law. There is a whole lot of talk about mislabeled invoices and simple errors that attempted to explain it all the way. The fact is, there were multiple cases in which Mr. Bernhardt was engaged in activities that made him the de facto lobbyist, carrying on with the same job he had been doing all along.

So you have a pattern of unethical behavior right in front of our eyes. He said he had to do this lawyering. There hadn't been any lawyering. Then we go back and look at the rules, and they say that in these situations, there is lawyering all the way through the process. That is why I am very troubled about his trustworthiness.

After Ryan Zinke's departure, every Senator ought to be interested in restoring integrity and honor to the Interior Department. Yet the Trump administration has double downed on its commitment to graft by nominating David Bernhardt for this job. As I mentioned, there are pending requests for inspector general investigations. I have also called for an investigation by the U.S. attorney. Neither of those has had adequate time to respond, but the majority leader has rushed this nomination to the floor.

To indicate how fast the nomination is moving, the President obviously nominated Mr. Bernhardt to lead the Interior Department less than a month ago. Less than 2 weeks ago, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held the confirmation hearing on his nomination. Exactly a week later, the committee voted to approve it. One week after that, the Senate may choose to vote on his final confirmation. I just think it is a grave mistake to be moving forward with so many serious unanswered questions, and let me go through the history about why.

The Interior Department is still reeling from Ryan Zinke and what I call this self-generated ethical hurricane. In addition to overseeing the largest rollback of Federal land protections in American history, Ryan Zinke triggered so many Federal inquiries and investigations before he resigned in

shame that you can't even easily track them. By most public reporting, he triggered at least 17 different Federal inquiries before he officially left office at the start of the year: the inappropriate censorship of scientific reports, the wasting of tens of thousands--if not hundreds of thousands--of dollars on office doors and chartered flights, and of cutting potentially illegal land deals with oil industry executives. His rap sheet basically goes on and on. It is as long as the Columbia River. In his brief tenure, Ryan Zinke demonstrated that he was better at corrupt self-dealing than he was at protecting our treasured public lands.

I mentioned David Bernhardt was Mr. Zinke's Deputy, and he was the Solicitor for the Interior Department during the Bush administration. He knows a lot about how the Department works.

I want to say this to my colleagues: If this is a guy who is hands on and if he really understands the Department of the Interior, I think you have to wonder why Mr. Bernhardt never seems to have objected to any of Mr. Zinke's corrupt activities.

The Interior Department, unfortunately, isn't new to scandal, and I am going to take a brief moment to look back at one particular scandal that relates to these matters--Julie MacDonald, a notoriously corrupt Interior official during the George W. Bush administration who was forced to resign.

In December of 2006, after an anonymous complaint sparked an investigation, the inspector general released a report showing that Ms. MacDonald had given internal Department documents to industry lobbyists and that she had run roughshod over career Department staff who tried to stand in her way.

I had serious concerns about the report and what was happening at the Department. So, literally, more than a decade ago, I placed a hold on a nominee to the Interior Department, pending some accountability for these flagrant abuses by Ms. MacDonald. The next day, which was months after the original report became public, she finally resigned. Later that year, I requested an expanded probe into Interior decisions related to the Endangered Species Act that Ms. MacDonald had been involved in.

There was evidence of her meddling having directly affected species in the Pacific Northwest. The Interior's inspector general released a report. According to the New York Times, it found ``Ms. MacDonald's zeal to advance her agenda has caused considerable harm to the integrity of the Endangered Species Act program and to the morale and reputation of the Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as potential harm to individual species.''

I bring this up because here is where David Bernhardt figures into the story.

A few weeks ago, I was surprised that Mr. Bernhardt requested to meet with me in my office. I said I would be glad to do it. When nominees come by, I usually just start with the questions: Why should I vote for you? Why should I be supportive? It is kind of an easy way for the nominee to get into it. That is why I do it.

What Mr. Bernhardt said was that he was a big ethics champion.

He said: Hey, do you remember Julie MacDonald? I am captain ethics. I advised Julie MacDonald to clean up her act.

I didn't ask Mr. Bernhardt about Julie MacDonald. He brought it up.

I have met with a lot of nominees, and I have heard a lot of reasons as to why they deserve my vote, but this meeting was certainly a head- scratcher. A nominee who had been present for Ryan Zinke's reign of corruption and conflict and who had seemed not to do anything about it had shown up, at his request, to tout his own ethics.

A few hours after the meeting in my office with Mr. Bernhardt, I decided I would look at his record for myself. Interior Department documents that had been obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request showed he had recently blocked the release of a Fish and Wildlife report about the effects of dangerous, toxic pesticides.

Career staff at the Fish and Wildlife Service, an Interior Department Agency, were on the brink of completing a comprehensive report on the impact of three pesticides on, potentially, hundreds of endangered species. This was a report by career staff. It was not put together by people who were political appointees. It defined pesticides that were so dangerous and so toxic that they jeopardized the continued existence of more than 1,000 species. This report, had it been made public, would have had profound consequences for pesticide manufacturers in the businesses that had used them.

The dedicated team of career staff at the Fish and Wildlife Service that had worked so long on this in order to make sure they really dug into the science--and they took years to be fastidious about it--wanted to make it public. The team was working rapidly to submit its findings to the Environmental Protection Agency for its review.

The documents show that before this landmark report could make it into public view, Mr. Bernhardt came along and pushed himself into the middle of the process. The documents show his emails on the pesticide report. He demanded briefings from these career scientists. They show meetings with White House officials and others about the specific section of the law that governs the role of Fish and Wildlife in these types of assessments. There is even included an email in which Mr. Bernhardt edited the letter that Interior officials used to block the release of the pesticide report. There were digital fingerprints everywhere.

I have to say that I looked at this, and I said: This sure sounds like Julie MacDonald all over again. The guy who said: ``Hey, I was the one who pushed Julie MacDonald to clean up her act,'' looked like he was meddling with the science just the way Julie MacDonald was. Ms. MacDonald was found by the inspector general to have meddled with the scientific conclusions, and now there is David Bernhardt, who has been alleged to have manipulated the process and blocked the release of an Endangered Species Act report.

So Mr. Bernhardt came to say that his ethics were unimpeachable and that he was above reproach. Yet I will tell you, for my colleagues who are thinking about this, if you read the documents I read from the Freedom of Information Act, they make him sound like another Julie MacDonald. I worked through all of these documents, and they left me with the impression that Mr. Bernhardt had lied to me about his ethics during our one-on-one meeting as well. It left me wondering why he would go out of his way to talk up his ethics when he must have known the truth was going to come out eventually.

During his confirmation hearing, he claimed he would strive to bring a culture of ethical compliance. He said he hoped to overhaul the ethics of the Ryan Zinke period and the Julie MacDonald experience. Senators called his qualifications unparalleled and claimed that the allegations of ethical misconduct against him were false. I respect those colleagues who have their opinions. I have my own, and my opinions are going to be based on the documents.

The document I entered into the record at his confirmation hearing showed that the pesticide industry repeatedly asked political appointees at the Interior Department and at the Environmental Protection Agency to intervene in the scientific analysis. It showed that Mr. Bernhardt eventually did so.

According to documents that had been made public by the Freedom of Information Act, a pesticide industry attorney wrote to then-Secretary Zinke and then-Administrator Scott Pruitt on April 13 of 2017. The pesticide industry was asking for changes to the Endangered Species Act. The industry followed it up very shortly with a request to meet with the Environmental Protection Agency's staff. At that time, a pesticide industry executive called an attorney of the Interior Department for a meeting as well. Another official from a pesticide trade association reached out to the same Interior Department attorney to discuss the Endangered Species Act.

Other supporting documentation consisted of an email that was dated October 5, 2017, from Mr. Bernhardt to Gary Frazer, the Fish and Wildlife Service's Assistant Director, who handles these endangered species. He ``was the top official overseeing the assessment of the impact,'' according to the press, while looking at the implications of these pesticides. In this email, Mr. Bernhardt asked Mr. Frazer for a briefing the following week. Additional documents

show that Mr. Bernhardt held a series of meetings with Mr. Frazer over the next 3 weeks.

On October 30, according to the calendar released by the Freedom of Information Act, Mr. Bernhardt met with White House officials to discuss Endangered Species Act provisions. It is called section 7. That is the section that pertains to the role that the Fish and Wildlife plays in ensuring other Agencies aren't jeopardizing species.

An email from November of 2017 shows Mr. Bernhardt edited the draft of a letter from career Fish and Wildlife Service staff to the EPA. It announced the Interior Department wouldn't be delivering the Fish and Wildlife's assessment to the Agency as planned. This, colleagues, is where Mr. Bernhardt put the brakes on this important Fish and Wildlife report about the pesticides.

According to a New York Times report, the pesticide analysis was blocked in conjunction with a ``radical shift'' in how the Fish and Wildlife analyzes the effects of these pesticides. The change greatly increased the burden of proof the Agency is required to meet to demonstrate pesticide effects on species. According to that article in the Times, it would likely result in fewer new restrictions on pesticide use. CropLife and RISE--two trade associations that represent the pesticide companies--were very much in favor of this. They were praising it.

Based on the documents, at the hearing, I asked Mr. Bernhardt why he would come to my office and sell me on ethics when the reports and the documents I just read showed otherwise. He had no response.

At the hearing, I asked Mr. Bernhardt specifically why he would come to the office and make these claims. He had no response at the hearing but took a long sip of water as though he had meant to go on awhile. Mr. Bernhardt made the claim that career Fish and Wildlife staff ``clearly'' didn't complete any legal review on the pesticide report, which is why he stepped in.

During the hearing and while under oath, I believe Mr. Bernhardt confirmed allegations that he interfered with the release of an Endangered Species Act report. He didn't, however, acknowledge that his involvement was inappropriate political meddling.

Following the hearing and with serious questions remaining about whether he had lied under oath to the committee, I wrote the Interior Department's inspector general for her help in getting to the bottom of the matter. Here are the facts I included:

On March 28, 2019, Mr. Bernhardt appeared before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for his confirmation hearing to become Secretary of the Department of the Interior. I questioned him about these documents and his role in blocking the Fish and Wildlife's analyses. He confirmed to me that he had reviewed the analyses. He claimed he believed the analyses had not been subject to legal review and made the determination to delay the report.

Second, Mr. Bernhardt's response:

You're dealing with some of the most difficult

consultations on the planet, and when I read the document, my

reaction to it was this is really an interesting draft. But

it clearly didn't have any legal review, and in our world you

can't ignore the law and come up with a scheme.

He continued:

And so what we decided is that the approach needed to be

readdressed.

Mr. Bernhardt's answer is totally off base with respect to the way legal analyses work.

Under standard procedure, there would be legal analysis through the development of this kind of fish and wildlife report. It would involve lawyers at Fish and Wildlife, Interior Department, or both.

So I am especially troubled by what appears to be a political appointee meddling in the scientific process with respect to a report that revealed the extraordinary danger of toxic pesticides.

I am the senior member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, a former chairman of the committee. I cannot recall ever having this kind of exchange with a nominee.

That is why I had to request that the Office of Inspector General investigate the following: What role did Mr. Bernhardt and other political appointees at the Interior Department play in delaying or obstructing the Fish and Wildlife Service pesticide report? What role did he play in changing Fish and Wildlife policy with regard to this key section in the Endangered Species Act? What role did other political appointees--Agriculture Senior Advisor, former CropLife lobbyist, Ms. Adcock--play in the Interior Department and Fish and Wildlife Service's decision making? Whether, as Mr. Bernhardt alleged to me under oath on March 28, 2019, the Fish and Wildlife draft analysis ``clearly didn't have any legal review'' and whether, as Mr. Bernhardt alleged to me, career lawyers at the Interior Department agreed with his analysis--these are all questions that haven't been answered.

I would just say to the Senate, if you need more evidence that there are too many questions to allow this nomination to move forward, the story just gets more complicated.

After Mr. Bernhardt demonstrated that he simply was going to dance around the truth, the Senate has to question his basic understanding of the law.

So on Monday, I asked the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to thoroughly investigate potential civil and criminal violations of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 by Mr. Bernhardt, as well as his former lobbying firm.

By the way, again, a newspaper reports--this time the Washington Post--that Mr. Bernhardt's ex-firm has quadrupled its business, earning nearly $5 million to lobby the Interior Department since he has taken his most recent spin through the Interior Department revolving door.

So here is what I said to the U.S. attorney: Lobbying Disclosure Act filings show Mr. Bernhardt registered to lobby for his law firm on behalf of the Westlands Water District on March 30, 2011. Westlands is the largest agricultural water district in the United States, in central California. Public reporting indicates Mr. Bernhardt ran his former lobby firm's natural resources department.

That lobby firm filed its 2016 fourth quarter report on November 18, 2016--1 week after the 2016 Presidential election--terminating Mr. Bernhardt's lobbying status as of that day.

Public reporting at the time indicates Mr. Bernhardt ``delisted himself as a lobbyist in November after Trump won the election to avoid running afoul of the new President's ban on lobbyists joining his administration.''

Public reporting and documents obtained via public records show that Mr. Bernhardt maintained his relationship with Westlands after his lobbyist deregistration on November 18, 2016. Furthermore, he may have repeatedly engaged in activity that would require him to continue registering as a Federal lobbyist. So he claimed he was no longer a lobbyist, but it sure looks as though he went right on lobbying.

The Lobbying Disclosure Act is pretty clear. I will read from public guidance provided by the U.S. House of Representatives. A lobbyist can terminate their registration ``only when the individual's lobbying activities on behalf of that client did not constitute at the end of the quarter . . . 20 percent of the time that such employee is engaged in total activities for that client; or that individual doesn't reasonably expect to make further lobbying contacts.''

What does the law mean by ``lobbying contacts?'' That is pretty clear too. The same guidance says it is ``any oral, written, or electronic communication to a covered Federal official that is made on behalf of a client'' with regard to Federal legislation, rulemaking, executive orders and the like. ``Covered Federal officials'' include all Members of Congress and their staff.

The evidence I included in my request to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia included several emails showing Mr. Bernhardt may have engaged in repeated, regulated lobbying contacts with covered Federal legislative branch officials.

The first time, according to the information that is already public, appears to be on November 22, 2016, just a few days after he deregistered as a lobbyist. Mr. Bernhardt agreed to join a conference call with Westlands and the offices of Representative Devin Nunes and former Representative Valadao to discuss upcoming legislation.

The second and third times are covered in a complaint filed with the

Mr. President, 30 years ago today, the Whistleblower Protection Act was signed into law. To call it a triumph doesn't do justice to the sheer number of years and people it took on both sides of the aisle to overcome numerous obstacles and enact Federal protections for Federal Government employees who step forward and do what we all should do: expose wrongdoings in order to hold government officials and agencies accountable.

Congressional efforts to protect whistleblowers date back to at least 1912 with the enactment of the Lloyd-La Follette Act. This act guaranteed the right of Federal employees to communicate with Members of Congress without the oversight of their employer and prohibited compensation to managers who retaliated against employees attempting to disclose whistleblower matters.

However, empowering Federal employees to speak up and speak the truth was and continues to be an ongoing struggle, one that has often pitted Congress against the executive branch. When President George H.W. Bush signed the Whistleblower Protection Act into law that April morning in 1989, it came after his predecessor President Ronald Reagan had vetoed a similar bill despite the fact that it had been unanimously adopted by both the Senate and the House.

The Whistleblower Protection Act, itself, was first introduced by Representative Pat Schroeder of Colorado as an amendment to the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and then as a stand-alone bill in 1982. The principal purpose of the bill was to block retaliation against employees who came forward, a never-ending problem. The bill would have allowed ``a person claiming to be aggrieved by a prohibited personnel practice to: (1) bring a civil action in a U.S. district court against the employee or agency involved (respondent); or (2) seek corrective action through the (Merit Systems Protection) Board.''

While that particular bill ultimately died after receiving unfavorable comments from the U.S. Government Accountability Office-- GAO--and the Merit Systems Protection Board, which adjudicates whistleblower complaints, its failure didn't deter our colleagues.

By the time 1989 rolled around, Members of both the House and the Senate, including Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, who spearheaded efforts in the Senate, had worked together for years to find a compromise and pass legislation that protected those employees whose disclosures revealed waste, fraud, or abuse. Between May of 1982 and September of 1989, 28 bills and resolutions with whistleblower protections built into them were introduced, many of them with dozens and dozens of cosponsors.

Since the passage of the Whistleblower Protection Act 30 years ago, Congress has continued to improve protections for whistleblowers, notably with the passage of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998; the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012; the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017; and more recently the Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017.

Unfortunately, despite all of these efforts, becoming a whistleblower is still a perilous path. In its latest budget justification, the Office of Special Counsel, the agency that investigates retaliation against Federal whistleblowers, reported that, in fiscal year 2018, that agency received over 4,100 complaints of retaliation, otherwise known as prohibited personnel practices. This, according to OSC, is a new agency record. That is not a record that anyone should be proud of.

As much as today is a celebration of the Whistleblower Protection Act and the work of the many people it took to make those protections law, it is a greater celebration of the courage whistleblowers embody when they step forward to shine a light on waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in the government. Their bravery and sacrifice is invaluable, and for that, we thank them. Unfortunately, coming forward to do what is right still requires too much of both.

Consequently, Congress still has more work to do to protect whistleblowers, and I call on my colleagues to remember the value of citizens being able to blow the whistle. As Representative Schroeder said early on in her efforts to help whistleblowers: ``If we in Congress are going to act as effective checks on excesses in the executive branch, we have to hear about such matters.''

Mr. President, today I, along with my colleague Senator Booker of New Jersey, are introducing the Algorithmic Accountability Act. This bill is a critical first step to address the use of biased or discriminatory algorithmic decisions impacting American consumers. It is a bicameral effort, led in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Yvette Clarke, vice chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Today's biggest companies are increasingly using algorithms to make decisions about consumers. The use by companies of algorithms can often benefit consumers, and these technologies have been critical in the creation of thousands of American companies. Alongside this beneficial proliferation, algorithms have become entrenched in the most life- changing of decisions. Algorithms can now determine whether Americans are hired for a dream job, are approved for a home mortgage, or even sent to jail.

But, as history has shown, a win for the corporation is not always a win for the consumer. And, in this case, when consumers lose, all too often they are a woman or an American of color. Though an innovation critical for future growth, algorithms can be as discriminatory as the humans they have begun to replace.

The issue is a simple one: While algorithms come to conclusions based on calculations, these calculations are created by humans or use data collected and supplied by humans. And, unfortunately, we humans can be biased, whether we know it or not, or we can created algorithms that, in time, create biases of their own.

Thanks to a flood of news reports and investigations detailing algorithms-gone-wrong, these issues are coming to light. Yet, American companies and the U.S. government are doing far too little to assess whether their own algorithms depend on biased assumptions, have created biases assumptions, and have the effect of increasing discrimination in the U.S.

Senator Booker and I intend to change that by ensuring that today's racial, social, and gender biases do not become entrenched in the automation of tomorrow.

Our bill has four main components.

First, it authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to create regulations requiring companies under its jurisdiction to conduct impact assessments of highly sensitive algorithms. This requirement would apply not only to new algorithmic systems, but also those that are both new and already in existence.

Second, it requires companies to assess their use of algorithms-- including any relevant training data--for impacts on accuracy, fairness, bias, discrimination, privacy, and security.

Third, it requires companies to evaluate how their information systems protect the privacy and security of consumers' personal information.

And, finally, it requires companies to correct any issues they discover during the impact assessments.

This legislation is in no way intended to hinder the adoption by American companies of advanced technologies like algorithms. Automated decision systems are out there, and they are being adopted into commercial decision-making processes.

What we are seeking to do with this bill is to ensure that companies take a hard look at their own technologies to ensure that they address any unintended side effects.

Mr. President, it is time for Congress to get involved by requiring companies to address biases and unintended discriminatory effects in their automated decision systems.

I thank my colleague Senator Booker for his efforts on this bill, and I hope the Senate will promptly consider and pass this critical legislation.