[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 3, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E13]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   ON RE-INTRODUCTION OF THE NOTIFICATION AND FEDERAL EMPLOYEE ANTI-
                   DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                    HON. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, January 3, 2001

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today I am making good on a promise I 
made during the last days of the previous Congress. During a press 
conference on October 24th last year announcing the introduction of 
H.R. 5516, the Notification and Federal Employee Anti-discrimination 
And Retaliation Act (the No FEAR Act) of 2000, I pledged to reintroduce 
this legislation on the first day of the 107th Congress. That day has 
arrived. I am pleased to introduce the No FEAR Act of 2001.
  During that press conference, a spokesman for the NAACP noted the 
NAACP Task Force on Federal Sector Discrimination and other civil 
rights organizations are supporting this legislation. It was hailed as 
the first civil rights legislation of the 21st Century. I would like to 
thank the courageous individuals and organizations, which have spoken 
out on the need for this legislation for their support.
  I would also like to thank Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee and 
Representative Connie Morella for their support of this bill when it 
was first introduced. This year I have made some modifications to the 
bill which ensure that its contents do not otherwise limit the ability 
of federal employees to exercise other rights available to them under 
federal law. The new draft also requires federal agencies to report 
their findings to the Attorney General in addition to Congress. 
Finally, the legislation makes more explicit references to 
reimbursement requirements under existing law. I believe that these 
changes make a good bill better.
  As the Chairman of the Committee on Science during the last Congress, 
I was very disturbed by allegations that EPA practices intolerance and 
discrimination against its scientists and employees. For the past year, 
the Committee on Science has investigated numerous charges of 
retaliation and discrimination at EPA, and unfortunately they were 
found to have merit.
  The Committee held a hearing in March 2000, over allegations that 
agency officials were intimidating EPA scientists and even harassing 
private citizens who publicly voiced concerns about agency policies and 
science. While investigating the complaints of several scientists, a 
number of African-American and disabled employees came to the Committee 
expressing similar concerns. One of those employees, Dr. Marsha 
Coleman-Adebayo, won a $600,000 jury decision against EPA for 
discrimination.
  It further appears EPA has gone so far as to retaliate against some 
of the employees and scientists that assisted the Science Committee 
during our investigation. In one case, the Department of Labor found 
EPA retaliated against a female scientist for, among other things, her 
assistance with the Science Committee's work. The EPA reassigned this 
scientist from her position as lab director at the Athens, Georgia 
regional office effective November 5, 2000--a position she held for 16 
years--to a position handling grants at EPA headquarters. In the 
October 3 decision, the Department of Labor directed EPA to cancel the 
transfer because it was based on retaliation.
  EPA's response to these problems has been to claim that they have a 
great diversity program. Apparently, EPA believes that if it hires the 
right makeup of people, it does not matter if its managers discriminate 
and harass those individuals.
  Diversity is great, but in and of itself, it is not the answer. 
Enforcing the laws protecting employees from harassment, discrimination 
and retaliation is the answer. EPA, however, does not appear to do 
this. EPA managers have not been held accountable when charges of 
intolerance and discrimination are found to be true. Such 
unresponsiveness by Administrator Browner and the Agency legitimizes 
this indefensible behavior.
  Subsequent to the hearing, other federal employees have contacted me 
with information regarding their complaints of harassment and 
retaliation.
  Federal employees with diverse backgrounds and ideas should have no 
fear of being harassed because of their ideas or the color of their 
skin. This bill would ensure accountability throughout the entire 
Federal Government--not just EPA. Under current law, agencies are held 
harmless when they lose judgements, awards or compromise settlements in 
whistleblower and discrimination cases.
  The Federal Government pays such awards out of a government-wide 
fund. The No FEAR Act would require agencies to pay for their misdeeds 
and mismanagement out of their own budgets. The bill would also require 
Federal agencies to notify employees about any applicable 
discrimination and whistleblower protection laws and report to Congress 
and the Attorney General on the number of discrimination and 
whistleblower cases within each agency. Additionally, each agency would 
have to report on the total cost of all whistleblower and 
discrimination judgements or settlements involving the agency.
  Federal employees and Federal scientists should have no fear that 
they will be discriminated against because of their diverse views and 
backgrounds. This legislation is a significant step towards achieving 
this goal.

                          ____________________