[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 16, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H1279-H1281]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT EMPLOYEES WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT OF 
                                  1999

  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 858) to amend title 11, District of Columbia Code, 
to extend coverage under the whistleblower protection provisions of the 
District of Columbia Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 to 
personnel of the courts of the District of Columbia.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 858

       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 ``District of Columbia Court 
     Employees Whistleblower Protection Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION FOR PERSONNEL OF THE COURTS 
                   OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 17 of title 11, 
     District of Columbia Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new section:

     ``Sec. 11-1733. Whistleblower protection for court personnel

       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, section 1503 
     of the District of Columbia Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act 
     of 1978 (DC Code, sec. 1-616.3) shall apply to court 
     personnel, except that court personnel may institute a civil 
     action pursuant to subsection (c) of such section in the 
     Superior Court of the District of Columbia or the United 
     States District Court for the District of Columbia.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subchapter II of chapter 17 of title 11, District of Columbia 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``11-1733. Whistleblower protection for court personnel.''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by section 2 shall take effect as if 
     included in the enactment of title XI of the Balanced Budget 
     Act of 1997.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Davis) and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
(Ms. Norton) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 858 is a straightforward, 
bipartisan bill. It simply levels the playing field by providing 
employees of the D.C. Superior Court, many of whom are my constituents, 
the same whistleblower protections that are enjoyed by other city 
employees under the District's Merit Personnel Act. It is also in 
accordance with the protections which cover employees in the Federal 
court system. The only additional option we are providing for any 
claimants, for obvious reasons, is the possibility of seeking relief in 
either the local or the Federal courts.
  The reason we need this bill, and we need to pass it in an 
expeditious fashion, is because of an ongoing GAO study of the 
financial and budgetary practices of the District of Columbia courts. 
At my request, management practices are being included in the GAO 
study.
  On January 26, 1999, I joined with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Istook), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia 
of the Committee on Appropriations, and the ranking member of that 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), in encouraging 
the Superior Court to urge employees who may have information useful to 
the GAO auditors to step forward without fear of retaliation. These 
assurances were provided in the form of administrative orders. We are 
grateful for such assurances. The bill is intended to provide statutory 
guarantees that can back up the court's order. It also plugs a loophole 
in the law that would help to ensure that Congress and others will 
continue to get the most candid and accurate information.
  It is obviously very important that when Congress asks for a GAO 
study, that GAO auditors be in a position to get the answers that they 
seek. Otherwise, Congress could be basing its subsequent oversight and 
legislation on misleading data. H.R. 858 would help to guarantee the 
integrity of the information Congress will be receiving.
  The D.C. Superior Court has over 1,000 employees and an annual budget 
of over $128 million. Whistleblower protection is by now a time-honored 
method of uncovering waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement. It should 
also be noted that Title XI of the D.C. Code, which this bill amends, 
is the sole prerogative of Congress to change under the Home Rule Act.
  I would emphasize that this legislation should not be misconstrued to 
cast any aspersions on those responsible for the sound management of 
the D.C. Superior Court. We are merely backing up the Court's own 
directives by providing routine protections which are overdue and which 
could help the GAO and Congress to receive the most accurate 
information.

[[Page H1280]]

  The Congressional Budget Office has assured us that this bill will 
not affect direct spending or receipts, and I want to urge passage of 
H.R. 858.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a number of cosponsors to this bill, and I want 
to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) for moving this 
through the Committee on Government Reform so expeditiously and my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) 
for her help in the drafting of this.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) for 
bringing the District of Columbia Court Employees Whistleblower 
Protection Act of 1999 to the House floor today. May I also thank the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on the District of Columbia of the Committee on Appropriations and the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the ranking member, for their work 
on the problems underlying this bill. I am an original cosponsor of 
this noncontroversial legislation, and I am pleased to have been so.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 858 amends Title XI of the District of Columbia 
Code to provide a new section affording whistleblower protections to 
D.C. court personnel. Congressional action is required because the 
District's Home Rule Charter allows only the Congress to amend Title 
XI, which relates to the Federal judiciary. As well, the Federal 
assumption of D.C. court costs in the District of Columbia 
Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, known as 
the Revitalization Act, leaves Congress as the body with principal 
oversight over the D.C. courts.
  May I say that we remain very pleased and gratified that through 
action of the Congress, the Federal Government has taken over certain 
State functions that no city could carry today.
  While this bill addresses an important issue, I want to indicate that 
there are other concerns as well that are similar, and perhaps other 
inevitable gaps in the law affecting the public safety elements of the 
Revitalization Act that were transferred because, after all, we were 
dealing with a very large transfer in that act.
  I appreciate that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) has agreed 
that the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the Committee on 
Government Reform will hold hearings in the spring on the other 
outstanding issues, especially those affecting the courts and halfway 
houses. Meanwhile, I agree that whistleblower protection is needed now 
in order to allow the GAO to proceed on an investigation of certain 
aspects of the D.C. court system.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 858 would grant D.C. court personnel the same 
whistleblower protections currently enjoyed by other D.C. employees 
under the District's Merit Personnel Act. An employee who discloses 
what she reasonably believes to be a violation of law, misuse of 
government resources or funds, should always be protected. In addition, 
H.R. 858 would allow court employees to bring a civil action in either 
D.C. Superior Court or the United States Court for violation of 
whistleblower protections. District court jurisdiction is appropriate, 
considering that it is the Superior Court that might be the subject of 
litigation, and also because of the jurisdiction of the Federal 
Government over the district courts under the Revitalization Act.
  Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize that I have full confidence in Superior 
Court Chief Judge Eugene Hamilton who has indicated, and I am quoting 
him, that ``There has not been, nor will there be, any retaliation or 
any other adverse consequences to any employee as a result of 
cooperating with the audit.'' Judge Hamilton has issued his own order 
to this effect.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 858, applying the same whistleblower protection to 
court employees that other D.C. employees now rely upon, should bolster 
Judge Hamilton's orders to court management to fully comply with the 
GAO requests. I urge my colleagues to support this noncontroversial 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the 
Congressional Budget Office cost estimate and the statement of 
administration policy, the support from the administration.

                   Statement of Administration Policy

    (This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the concerned 
                               agencies.)


h.r. 858--district of columbia court employees whistleblower protection 
                              act of 1999

                  (Rep. Davis (R) VA and 3 cosponsors)

       The Administration supports H.R. 858, which would extend 
     coverage under the whistleblower protection provisions of the 
     District of Columbia Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 
     1978 to personnel of the courts of the District of Columbia. 
     The change would protect these employees from losing their 
     jobs or otherwise being penalized for disclosing violations 
     of the law or misuse of government funds or resources. 
     Similar protection is already provided to most District 
     employees.
                                  ____


       Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate--March 15, 1999


     h.r. 858--district of columbia court employees' whistleblower 
 protection act of 1999--as ordered reported by the house committee on 
                  government reform on march 10, 1999

       H.R. 858 would amend District of Columbia statutes to 
     extend protection from retaliatory action to court personnel 
     who disclose seemingly unlawful or fraudulent practices. 
     Protection would also extend to D.C. court personnel who 
     participate in an investigation into alleged violations of 
     law or refuse to participate in activities that are 
     fraudulent or unlawful. Under the bill, court employees could 
     seek relief from violations by filing civil claims in either 
     the Superior Court of the District of Columbia or the U.S. 
     District Court for the District of Columbia. CBO estimates 
     that enacting H.R. 858 would have little or no effect on the 
     federal budget. The bill would not affect direct spending or 
     receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not 
     apply.
       H.R. 858 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined 
     in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) because it would 
     impose enforceable duties on the District of Columbia with 
     regard to the treatment of court personnel. CBO estimates 
     that the costs of complying with this mandate would be 
     minimal. H.R. 858 contains no private-sector mandates as 
     defined in UMRA.
       The CBO staff contacts are John R. Righter (for federal 
     costs), who can be reached at 226-2860, and Susan Sieg (for 
     the state and local impact), who can be reached at 225-3220. 
     This estimate was approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy 
     Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my voice in support of 
H.R. 858, the District of Columbia Whistleblower Act. I commend 
Committee Chairman Dan Burton and D.C. Subcommittee Chairman Tom Davis 
for bringing this legislation to the House floor in a timely manner.
  H.R. 858 merely extends the same whistleblower protections to 
employees of the D.C. Superior Court that federal employees and 
District of Columbia workers enjoy. The bill also gives D.C. Superior 
Court employees the option of taking complaints of wrongdoing to the 
local or to the federal courts.
  It is my understanding that the General Accounting Office (GAO) is 
conducting a study of the financial operations and the management 
practices of the D.C. courts. This legislation will give D.C. Superior 
Court workers the confidence and security they need to step forward 
with information that may be helpful to the GAO.
  Whenever waste, fraud, and abuse occur within a federal agency or 
within a federal or local court, there are employees who know about it 
and are angered by it. These employees need to know that they will not 
suffer damage to their careers if they uncover and try to correct these 
abuses. Pentagon employees who report millions of dollars of wasteful 
spending and lawyers at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who question 
the safety of nuclear plants are all assured that they will not suffer 
retaliation for disclosing wrongdoing within their agencies. H.R. 858 
will also ensure that dedicated civil servants within the D.C. Superior 
Court will receive the statutory protection that they deserve for the 
disclosure of accurate information regarding mismanagement and abuse 
within the courts.
  As the Vice-Chair of the D.C. Subcommittee, I am proud to be an 
original cosponsor of H.R. 858. Let me add that, in no way, do I mean 
to suggest that there is rampant mismanagement or abuse within the D.C. 
Superior Court. This legislation merely levels the playing field for 
Court employees and corrects an inequity in the law that will help to 
strengthen the D.C. court system. Protecting D.C. Superior Court 
employees who disclose government waste and mismanagement is a major 
step toward a more effective court system, which is essential to the 
revitalization of the District of Columbia.
  Many of the 1,000 employees of the D.C. Superior Court live in my 
congressional district, and I am pleased to be part of this effort

[[Page H1281]]

to afford them the same whistleblower protections that cover all 
workers in the city of D.C. and throughout the federal government.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 858.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the District 
of Columbia Court Employees Whistleblower Protection Act of 1999 (H.R. 
858).
  My colleagues, this is important legislation.
  It deserves strong bi-partisan support.
  As my good friends Tom Davis and Eleanor Holmes Norton acknowledge 
this legislation is important to correct an error that has permitted 
employees of the District's Superior and Appeals Courts to operate 
without any whistleblower protection.
  The error was probably an oversight.
  As part of home-rule back in 1971, Congress fused the functions of 
state and municipal court functions to produce the D.C. Superior Court 
and the D.C. Court of Appeals.
  Both courts are funded by the city, but their judges are nominated 
for 15-year terms by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
  Apparently no one sought or succeeded in extending the District's 
merit protection laws to court employees.
  As a result, court employees have lacked the same whistleblower 
protections all other district government employees receive.
  Unfortunately, it took a series of troubling events to bring this 
issue back to the attention of Congress.
  Last fall, I was contacted by several court-appointed attorneys 
handling both criminal and child abuse cases who indicated that they 
were not being paid because the D.C. Superior Court was running out of 
money.
  Some of these billable hours remained unpaid for up to 6 months.
  From these initial calls, it became apparent that the Superior Court 
was facing a severe financial crisis.
  Probing further a number of charges were raised about the Court's 
financial management practices.
  These charges range from mismanagement to specific misdeeds.
  On September 22, 1998, D.C. Appropriations Chairman Charles Taylor 
and I asked the General Accounting Office to conduct an audit of the 
Court's financial and personnel practices.
  In response to reports that some court personnel were reluctant to 
cooperate with GAO's audit for fear of retaliation, I joined Reps. Tom 
Davis and Ernest Istook on January 26th of this year in a letter sent 
to Chief Judge Eugene Hamilton asking him to ensure that no court 
employees were retaliated against for cooperating with GAO auditors.
  Judge Hamilton has assured us of his cooperation, but reports on 
employees' fear of retaliation have continued.
  It is for this reason, that we are now compelled to move forward with 
whistleblower protection legislation.
  It is my sincere hope that the Court will receive a clean audit, but 
it is critical Congress and the residents of the District of Columbia 
have full confidence that their courts operate with sound financial and 
personnel practices.
  This legislation will help give us the confidence these goals are 
attainable.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 858.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________