[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.
____________________