[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 51 (Tuesday, April 30, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H1691-H1696]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 NOTIFICATION AND FEDERAL EMPLOYEE ANTIDISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION 
                              ACT OF 2001

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 169) to require that 
Federal agencies be accountable for violations of antidiscrimination 
and whistleblower protection laws; to require that each Federal agency 
post quarterly on its public Web site, certain statistical data 
relating to Federal sector equal employment opportunity complaints 
filed with such agency; and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Senate Amendments:
       Page 2, line 6, strike out ``2001'' and insert ``2002''.
       Page 2, in the table of contents, strike out

                    ``TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS''

``Sec. 101. Findings.''
``Sec. 102 Definitions.''
``Sec. 103 Effective date.''

     and insert

                      TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 101. Findings.
Sec. 102. Sense of Congress.
Sec. 103. Definitions.
Sec. 104. Effective date.

       Page 2, in the table of contents, strike out

``Sec. 206 Study by the General Accounting Office regarding exhaustion 
              of administrative remedies.''

     and insert

``Sec. 206. Studies by General Accounting Office on exhaustion of 
              remedies and certain Department of Justice costs.''


[[Page H1692]]


       Page 2, strike out all after line 9 over to and including 
     line 13 on page 4 and insert:

     SEC. 101. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) Federal agencies cannot be run effectively if those 
     agencies practice or tolerate discrimination;
       (2) Congress has heard testimony from individuals, 
     including representatives of the National Association for the 
     Advancement of Colored People and the American Federation of 
     Government Employees, that point to chronic problems of 
     discrimination and retaliation against Federal employees;
       (3) in August 2000, a jury found that the Environmental 
     Protection Agency had discriminated against a senior social 
     scientist, and awarded that scientist $600,000;
       (4) in October 2000, an Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration investigation found that the Environmental 
     Protection Agency had retaliated against a senior scientist 
     for disagreeing with that agency on a matter of science and 
     for helping Congress to carry out its oversight 
     responsibilities;
       (5) there have been several recent class action suits based 
     on discrimination brought against Federal agencies, including 
     the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Alcohol, 
     Tobacco, and Firearms, the Drug Enforcement Administration, 
     the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the United States 
     Marshals Service, the Department of Agriculture, the United 
     States Information Agency, and the Social Security 
     Administration;
       (6) notifying Federal employees of their rights under 
     discrimination and whistleblower laws should increase Federal 
     agency compliance with the law;
       (7) requiring annual reports to Congress on the number and 
     severity of discrimination and whistleblower cases brought 
     against each Federal agency should enable Congress to improve 
     its oversight over compliance by agencies with the law; and
       (8) requiring Federal agencies to pay for any 
     discrimination or whistleblower judgment, award, or 
     settlement should improve agency accountability with respect 
     to discrimination and whistleblower laws.

     SEC. 102. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) Federal agencies should not retaliate for court 
     judgments or settlements relating to discrimination and 
     whistleblower laws by targeting the claimant or other 
     employees with reductions in compensation, benefits, or 
     workforce to pay for such judgments or settlements;
       (2) the mission of the Federal agency and the employment 
     security of employees who are blameless in a whistleblower 
     incident should not be compromised;
       (3) Federal agencies should not use a reduction in force or 
     furloughs as means of funding a reimbursement under this Act;
       (4)(A) accountability in the enforcement of employee rights 
     is not furthered by terminating--
       (i) the employment of other employees; or
       (ii) the benefits to which those employees are entitled 
     through statute or contract; and
       (B) this Act is not intended to authorize those actions;
       (5)(A) nor is accountability furthered if Federal agencies 
     react to the increased accountability under this Act by 
     taking unfounded disciplinary actions against managers or by 
     violating the procedural rights of managers who have been 
     accused of discrimination; and
       (B) Federal agencies should ensure that managers have 
     adequate training in the management of a diverse workforce 
     and in dispute resolution and other essential communication 
     skills; and
       (6)(A) Federal agencies are expected to reimburse the 
     General Fund of the Treasury within a reasonable time under 
     this Act; and
       (B) a Federal agency, particularly if the amount of 
     reimbursement under this Act is large relative to annual 
     appropriations for that agency, may need to extend 
     reimbursement over several years in order to avoid--
       (i) reductions in force;
       (ii) furloughs;
       (iii) other reductions in compensation or benefits for the 
     workforce of the agency; or
       (iv) an adverse effect on the mission of the agency.
       Page 4, line 14, strike out ``102.'' and insert ``103''.
       Page 4, line 18, strike out ``agency,'' and insert 
     ``agency'';
       Page 4, line 21, strike out ``303,'' and insert ``303'';
       Page 4, line 25, strike out ``Commission,'' and insert 
     ``Commission'';
       Page 5, line 2, strike out ``agency,'' and insert 
     ``agency'';
       Page 5, line 5, strike out ``agency,'' and insert 
     ``agency'';
       Page 5, line 9, strike out ``103.'' and insert ``104''.
       Page 6, line 3, strike out ``(c),'' and insert ``(c)'';
       Page 6, line 19, strike out ``of the'' and insert ``,''
       Page 7, line 2, strike out ``of the'' and insert ``,''
       Page 7, strike out lines 3 and 4
       Page 7, line 14, strike out ``law,'' and insert ``law'';
       Page 7, line 15, strike out ``if to the extent that'' and 
     insert ``if, or to the extent that'',
       Page 8, line 8, after ``ate,'' insert ``the Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate, the Committee on 
     Government Reform of the House of Representatives, each 
     committee of Congress with jurisdiction relating to the 
     agency,''
       Page 8, line 14, strike out ``alleged,'' and insert 
     ``alleged'';
       Page 8, line 16, strike out ``(1),'' and insert ``(1)'';
       Page 8, line 21, strike out ``any,'' and insert ``any'';
       Page 8, line 25, strike out ``(1),'' and insert ``(1)'';
       Page 9 , line 3, strike out ``, and'' and insert ``;''
       Page 9, strike out lines 4 through 14 and insert
       (6) a detailed description of--
       (A) the policy implemented by that agency relating to 
     appropriate disciplinary actions against a Federal employee 
     who--
       (i) discriminated against any individual in violation of 
     any of the laws cited under section 201(a) (1) or (2); or
       (ii) committed another prohibited personnel practice that 
     was revealed in the investigation of a complaint alleging a 
     violation of any of the laws cited under section 201(a) (1) 
     or (2); and
       (B) with respect to each of such laws, the number of 
     employees who are disciplined in accordance with such policy 
     and the specific nature of the disciplinary action taken;
       (7) an analysis of the information described under 
     paragraphs (1) through (6) (in conjunction with data provided 
     to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in compliance 
     with part 1614 of title 29 of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations) including--
       (A) an examination of trends;
       (B) causal analysis;
       (C) practical knowledge gained through experience; and
       (D) any actions planned or taken to improve complaint or 
     civil rights programs of the agency; and
       (8) any adjustment (to the extent the adjustment can be 
     ascertained in the budget of the agency) to comply with the 
     requirements under section 201.
       Page 9, strike out lines 18 and 19 and insert
       ``years (or, if data are not available for all 5 fiscal 
     years, for each of those 5 fiscal years for which data are 
     available)''.
       Page 9, line 23, strike out ``title,'' and insert 
     ``title'';
       Page 9, strike out all after line 23 over to and including 
     line 6 on page 10 and insert
       (2) rules to require that a comprehensive study be 
     conducted in the executive branch to determine the best 
     practices relating to the appropriate disciplinary actions 
     against Federal employees who commit the actions described 
     under clauses (i) and (ii) of section 203(a)(6)(A); and
       Page 10, line 20, strike out ``guidelines,'' and insert 
     ``guidelines'';
       Page 10, lines 22 and 23, strike out ``guidelines,'' and 
     insert ``guidelines'';
       Page 11, strike out all after line 9 over to and including 
     line 16 on page 12 and insert

     SEC. 206. STUDIES BY GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE ON EXHAUSTION 
                   OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AND ON ASCERTAINMENT 
                   OF CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COSTS.

         (a) Study on Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies.--
       (1) Study.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the General Accounting Office shall 
     conduct a study relating to the effects of eliminating the 
     requirement that Federal employees aggrieved by violations of 
     any of the laws specified under section 201(c) exhaust 
     administrative remedies before filing complaints with the 
     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
       (B) Contents.--The study shall include a detailed summary 
     of matters investigated, information collected, and 
     conclusions formulated that lead to determinations of how the 
     elimination of such requirement will--
       (i) expedite handling of allegations of such violations 
     within Federal agencies and will streamline the complaint-
     filing process;
       (ii) affect the workload of the Commission;
       (iii) affect established alternative dispute resolution 
     procedures in such agencies; and
       (iv) affect any other matters determined by the General 
     Accounting Office to be appropriate for consideration.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 90 days after completion of the 
     study required by paragraph (1), the General Accounting 
     Office shall submit to the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate, the 
     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Attorney 
     General a report containing the information required to be 
     included in such study.
         (b) Study on Ascertainment of Certain Costs of the 
     Department of Justice in Defending Discrimination and 
     Whistleblower Cases.--
       (1) Study.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the General Accounting Office shall 
     conduct a study of the methods that could be used for, and 
     the extent of any administrative burden that would be imposed 
     on, the Department of Justice to ascertain the personnel and 
     administrative costs incurred in defending in each case 
     arising from a proceeding identified under section 201(a) (1) 
     and (2).
       (2) Report.--Not later than 90 days after completion of the 
     study required by paragraph (1), the General Accounting 
     Office shall submit to the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate a 
     report containing the information required to be included in 
     the study.
       Page 12, after line 16, insert
         (c) Studies on Statutory Effects on Agency Operations.--

[[Page H1693]]

       (1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the General Accounting Office shall 
     conduct--
       (A) a study on the effects of section 201 on the operations 
     of Federal agencies; and
       (B) a study on the effects of section 13 of the Contract 
     Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 612) on the operations of 
     Federal agencies.
       (2) Contents.--Each study under paragraph (1) shall 
     include, with respect to the applicable statutes of the 
     study--
       (A) a summary of the number of cases in which a payment was 
     made in accordance with section 2414, 2517, 2672, or 2677 of 
     title 28, United States Code, and under section 1304 of title 
     31, United States Code;
       (B) a summary of the length of time Federal agencies used 
     to complete reimbursements of payments described under 
     subparagraph (A); and
       (C) conclusions that assist in making determinations on how 
     the reimbursements of payments described under subparagraph 
     (A) will affect--
       (i) the operations of Federal agencies;
       (ii) funds appropriated on an annual basis;
       (iii) employee relations and other human capital matters;
       (iv) settlements; and
       (v) any other matter determined by the General Accounting 
     Office to be appropriate for consideration.
       (3) Reports.--Not later than 90 days after the completion 
     of each study under paragraph (1), the General Accounting 
     Office shall submit a report on each study, respectively, to 
     the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President 
     pro tempore of the Senate, the Committee on Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate, the Committee on Government Reform of 
     the House of Representatives, and the Attorney General.
       Page 12, after line 16, insert
         (d) Study on Administrative and Personnel Costs Incurred 
     by the Department of the Treasury.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the General Accounting Office shall 
     conduct a study on the extent of any administrative and 
     personnel costs incurred by the Department of the Treasury to 
     account for payments made in accordance with section 2414, 
     2517, 2672, or 2677 of title 28, United States Code, and 
     under section 1304 of title 31, United States Code, as a 
     result of--
       (A) this Act; and
       (B) the Contracts Dispute Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 601 note; 
     Public Law 95-563).
       (2) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the completion of 
     the study under paragraph (1), the General Accounting Office 
     shall submit a report on the study to the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives, the President pro tempore of the 
     Senate, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, 
     the Committee on Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Attorney General.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on H.R. 169 now under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government must be the role model for civil 
rights, not for civil rights violations. For far too long there has 
been little accountability which Federal agencies discriminate and 
retaliate against their employees. I am happy to say that this is about 
to change with the enactment of the No FEAR bill, a bill that I 
introduced, together with the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), 
and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), after a year-long 
investigation.
  That investigation, as well as several General Accounting Office 
investigations, indicated a serious problem in the Federal Government. 
The congressional investigation found evidence that a Federal agency 
was allowing discrimination and retaliation against its employees. This 
evidence was supported by the GAO reports that investigated 
discrimination in the Federal workforce during the 1990s and found that 
complaints of discrimination by Federal agencies grew tremendously.
  In fact, by 1999, the number of such complaints to the EEOC increased 
by almost 130 percent over the number of complaints in 1991. The GAO 
reported that complaints alleging retaliation against employees who had 
participated in the complaint process also increased.
  The problem in the Federal workforce is threefold. First, because of 
inadequate notification requirements, many employees are not aware of 
their rights and many managers are not aware of their responsibilities. 
Second, Federal agencies and Congress cannot assess the extent of the 
problem due to inadequate reporting. Third, Federal agencies are not 
accountable for the misdeeds of their employees, because they simply 
tap the general Treasury to pay for court judgments and settlements in 
discrimination cases.
  The No FEAR Act targets these 3 problems. The bill will require 
agencies to pay for all court settlements and judgments for 
discrimination and retaliation cases, instead of allowing the agency to 
use a government-wide slush fund. This will make agencies more 
accountable.
  The bill has a notification requirement aimed at improving workforce 
relations by increasing managers' and employees' knowledge of their 
respective rights and responsibilities.
  The Act also has reporting requirements that will help determine if a 
pattern of misconduct exists within an agency and whether that agency 
is taking appropriate action to address the problem. The GAO testified 
on May 9 that such tracking of complaints, cases, and costs are not 
occurring, but that it is critical to understanding whether a problem 
exists.
  As the National Taxpayers Union stated in urging Congress to enact 
the legislation, ``The No FEAR Act promotes the virtues of fiscal 
responsibility and accountability in government.'' And, as Jack White 
of Time Magazine stated, the No FEAR bill is the ``first new civil 
rights law of the 21st century.''
  The No FEAR Act passed the House back in October of 2001 with a 420 
to zero vote. The Senate, after 6 months, finally passed the bill and 
sent it back here with a few minor changes to the reporting 
requirements and 2 new GAO studies.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, this bill never would have happened without 
the hard work of Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo, the Federal whistleblower 
who brought this issue to the forefront; Mr. Leroy Warren of the NAACP, 
and Steven Kohn of the National Whistle Blowers Center.
  Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government should be a model of the best 
practices for a fair and open work environment. That was not the case 
in the 1990s, but must be the case in the 21st century. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, though this might seem to be a little bit flowery, there 
are often times when we bring legislation to the floor of the House 
that has worked its will, and it makes a difference and it changes 
lives, and we are glad that it passed.

                              {time}  1415

  But sometimes we can call legislation a labor of love, and I would 
like to think that the work that the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary has done symbolizes that.
  I would like to personally thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Chairman Sensenbrenner) for having the stick-to-it-iveness to 
collaborate with me and to be responsive to issues that came to our 
attention when we were members of the Committee on Science. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin was chairman, and I was a member of that 
committee. I remain a member of that committee and the Committee on the 
Judiciary, and we remain colleagues working together. This legislation 
represents a challenge to all of us.
  Finally, the story has a positive ending. It represents changing 
lives. Mr. Speaker, I might say, some lives were lost. This is an 
important initiative on the floor of the House today. Because of its 
importance, I took all necessary means from Texas to get here on time, 
and I am glad I just made it.
  But let me speak to the No FEAR Act regarding the legislation that is 
now before us that has come to us from the United States Senate. This 
is a major step in our fight to end the insidious practice of 
discrimination and

[[Page H1694]]

retaliation in our Nation's Federal workforce.
  Mr. Speaker, in the fiscal year 2000, Federal employees filed nearly 
25,000 complaints against Federal agencies through the EEOC process. 
These complaints resulted in over $26 million in discrimination 
complaint settlements and judgments, with an average process time of 
384 days per complaint in 1998, while a case traveling through the 
entire complaint process, from filing through appeal, could take up to 
38 months.
  Some would say that is a waste of money. Some would say that this 
legislation will, in fact, save the government money by creating an 
atmosphere of tolerance and nondiscrimination, as the chairman said, in 
the 21st century. These numbers and process times indicate that 
discrimination is pervasive now in our Federal workplace, and we must 
change it.
  Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is illegal to discriminate 
against Federal employees on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, 
national origin, age, or disability. These laws have taken us a long 
way towards ensuring equality, job security, and the rule of law in the 
Federal workplace by protecting Federal employees from retaliation when 
filing complaints against either the agency or other employees of the 
Federal Government who act in supervisory roles.
  Currently, Federal whistleblowers may file reprisal complaints with 
the Office of Special Counsel, the Merit System Protection Board, the 
Department of Labor, the Occupation and Safety Health Administration, 
OSHA. Federal whistleblowers are protected under several Federal laws, 
the primary one being the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989.
  But the number of actions and extensive process times indicate that 
this legislation is greatly needed. The No FEAR Act is instructive and 
important. Since its introduction in the 106th Congress as H.R. 5516, 
the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and 
Retaliation Act of 2000, No FEAR, has stood for the principle that 
Federal employees should have no fear reporting discriminatory behavior 
by their Federal agency employers.
  Like its predecessor, the legislation before us today, H.R. 169, 
demands that agencies be held accountable for their misdeeds, but H.R. 
169 expands accountability through the entire Federal Government.
  The American Federation of Government Employees have No FEAR because 
we are here to work with them. We know of the conscientious and well-
meaning and hardworking Federal employees, and we affirm them today. 
The only thing this legislation attempts to do is to work with them to 
ensure that we have a Federal workplace that all of us can be proud of.
  Let me put a face on this problem, Mr. Speaker. On October 2, 2000, 
the House Committee on Science held a hearing entitled ``Intolerance at 
EPA, Harming People, Harming Science.'' That is when our hero, Dr. 
Marsha Coleman-Adebayo, an EPA whistleblower, won a $600,000 jury 
decision against EPA for race and sex discrimination under Title VII of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  During that hearing, then chairman of the Committee on Science, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) illuminated the dangerous 
precedent set by the EPA, stating ``While EPA has a clear policy on 
dealing with employees who discriminate, harass, or retaliate against 
other EPA employees, no one apparently involved in the Coleman-Adebayo 
or Nolan cases have yet to be disciplined by EPA.''
  Here is what we have: We have a situation where Dr. Coleman-Adebayo 
was faced with constant harassment and discrimination, and it did not 
change. Could Members imagine that in a subsequent report, those 
employees that discriminated against her were applauded and 
complimented for their work? Do Members realize that in the testimony, 
a number of those stories that were not able to be presented 
personally, a number of those stories resulted in illnesses that 
employees suffered. One employee lost his life because of the stress.
  The No FEAR bill now responds to a workplace that can be safe and 
hospitable.
  First, the bill requires accountability throughout our Federal 
workplace, and disturbingly, under current law, Federal agencies are 
not held liable when they lose judgments. The No FEAR Act recognizes 
that accountability is important.
  The No FEAR Act, secondly, requires Federal agencies to notify 
employees about any applicable discrimination and whistleblower 
protection laws, and report to Congress. That is a big step. If they 
come as new or old employees, they do not know.
  Third, No FEAR recognizes Congress' intent that such legislation is 
necessary, but should not otherwise limit the ability of Federal 
employees to exercise their other rights.
  Finally, No FEAR requires each Federal agency to send in an annual 
report to Congress listing, among other things, the number of cases the 
agency is involved in.
  Let me applaud the Senate, Mr. Speaker, and say that I am gratified 
at the amendments they offered, the one expressing the sense of 
Congress that we should not be punitive on one side to help another 
side. We should not use a reduction of workforce or forced furloughs in 
order to pay for settlements.
  I am very gratified that they have an amendment that will allow the 
reports to go to all committees of jurisdiction, and their third 
amendment that will ask for a study to see how much the cost is.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe this labor of love is long overdue, creating a 
hospitable workplace, but applauding the working people of the Federal 
Government, and at the same time weeding out and pushing out 
discrimination.
  I'd like to thank Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, Ranking 
Member John Conyers, and all my colleagues from both sides of the aisle 
for supporting this important civil rights legislation. This bill 
before us today, a substitute to H.R. 169 (the No Fear Act), is a major 
step in our fight to end the insidious practice of discrimination and 
retaliation in our Nation's federal workplace.
  My friends, in fiscal year 2000, federal employees filed nearly 
25,000 complaints against federal agencies through the EEOC process. 
These complaints resulted in over $26 million in discrimination 
complaint settlements and judgements, with an average process time of 
384 days per complaint in 1998, while a case traveling through the 
entire complaint process from filing through appeal could take up to 38 
months. These numbers and process times indicate that discrimination is 
pervasive in our federal workplace.
  Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is illegal to discriminate 
against federal employees on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, 
national origin, age, or disability. These laws have taken us a long 
way towards ensuring equality, job security, and the rule of law in the 
federal workplace by protecting federal employees from retaliation for 
filing complaints against either the agency or other employees of the 
federal government who act in supervisory roles.
  Currently, federal whistleblowers may file reprisal complaints with 
the Office of Special Counsel (``OSC''), the Merit Systems Protection 
Board (``MSPB''), and the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration (``OSHA''). Federal whistleblowers are protected 
under several federal laws, the primary one being the Whistleblower 
Protection Act of 1989. But the numbers of actions and extensive 
process times indicate that further legislation is greatly needed.
  Since its introduction in the 106th Congress as H.R. 5516, the 
Notification and Federal Employee Anti-discrimination And Retaliation 
Act of 2000 (No FEAR Act), has stood for the principle that federal 
employees should have ``no fear'' in reporting discriminatory behavior 
by their federal agency employers. Like its predecessor, the 
legislation before us today, H.R. 169, demands that agencies be held 
accountable for their misdeeds, but H.R. 169 expands accountability 
throughout the entire Federal Government.
  Let me put a face on this problem. On October 2, 2000, the House 
Science Committee held a hearing entitled ``Intolerance at EPA--Harming 
People, Harming Science?'' Dr. Marshal Coleman-Adebayo, an EPA 
whistleblower, won a $600,000 jury decision against EPA for race and 
sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 
During that hearing, then Chairman of the Science Committee 
Sensenbrenner illuminated the dangerous precedent set by the EPA, 
stating, ``While EPA has a clear policy on dealing with employees that 
discriminate, harass and retaliate against other EPA employees, no one 
apparently involved in the Coleman-Adebayo or Nolan cases have yet to 
be disciplined by EPA.''
  I note with concern that an internal EPA memo dated August 2, 2001 
praised the managers named in Dr. Coleman-Adebayo's case

[[Page H1695]]

as environmental leaders without a single mention of their role in 
violating her civil rights. When coupled with the high profile nature 
of the Dr. Coleman-Adebayo's case, I believe these actions send 
the wrong message to EPA and federal employees.

  No FEAR contains four major provisions which address this problem. 
First, the bill requires accountability throughout our federal 
workplace. Disturbingly, under current law, federal agencies are not 
held liable when they lose judgements, awards or compromise settlements 
in whistleblower and discrimination cases. This has the effect of 
discouraging accountability because the Federal Government pays such 
awards out of a government-wide judgement fund. The No FEAR Act 
recognizes that accountability is the cornerstone of good management 
policy, and as such requires that when agencies lose judgments, awards, 
or compromise settlements in whistleblower and discrimination cases, 
the responsible agency must pay for the judgment out of its own budget, 
rather than out of a general federal judgment fund as currently occurs.
  Second, No FEAR requires 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.
  Third, No FEAR recognizes Congress' intent that such legislation is 
necessary but should not otherwise limit the ability of federal 
employees to exercise other rights available to them under federal law.
  Finally, No FEAR requires each federal agency to send an annual 
report to Congress listing, among other things: (a) The number of cases 
in which an agency was alleged to have violated any of the 
discrimination and whistleblower statues; (b) the disposition of each 
of these cases; (c) the total of all monetary awards charged against 
the agency from these cases; and (d) the number of agency employees 
disciplined for discrimination or harassment.
  The Senate Amendments added a new section expressing the sense of the 
Congress that agencies should not use a reduction in force or furloughs 
as a means of funding a reimbursement under the Act. This amendment 
also ensures that managers have adequate training in the management of 
a diverse workforce and in communication skills.
  The Senate amendment also strengthens the bill's reporting 
requirements specifying that the reports must be sent to the Government 
Affairs Committee, the House Governmental Reform Committee and other 
committees of jurisdiction; requiring agencies to report on their 
policies relating to disciplining employees who commit prohibited 
personnel practices revealed in the investigation of a discrimination 
complaint.
  Finally, The Senate amendment requires GAO to study the methods that 
could be used by the DOJ to determine its costs of defending each 
discrimination and whistleblower case, and the extent of any 
administrative burden that making such determination would entail.
  In all, No FEAR makes our agencies more accountable by creating 
incentives for them to monitor themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, we have come a long way towards eliminating the culture 
of discrimination and harassment that exists in our federal workplace. 
As Members of Congress, we must make every effort possible to ensure 
that those victims and heroes who come forward to warn us of the 
violations existing in the federal workplace are protected from 
retaliation, treated with the respect and dignity, and are afforded the 
due process to which they are entitled to under the law.
  Our federal employees cannot and must not live in fear. This bi-
partisan legislation will ensure that they do not. I urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Marsha 
Coleman. Adebayo, all the employees that I met with on this issue the 
entire workplace task force, the NAACP, the Chicago branch of the NAACP 
and President of the NAACP Kweisi Mfume for their leadership, help, 
persistence and commitment to the passage of the No FEAR legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Davis), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Government Reform's Subcommittee on Civil Service and 
Agency Organization.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Texas for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of what is being commonly 
called the No FEAR Act. I want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) for their hard work, diligence, and tenacity in pursuing this 
legislation to get it to the floor today. They both have done 
outstanding work, and I appreciate their efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, our goal should be to always have in place the most open 
and responsive workplace that can be created. This means that employees 
must feel free, uninhibited, and able to operate without fear. They 
must be able to operate knowing that should they reveal information, 
that should they bring to the surface what they have seen, and should 
they report what they know, that there will be no reprisals, there will 
be no retaliation, and there will be nothing that anybody will ever be 
able to do that will cause them grief.
  I think the day is great because it means that the Federal Government 
is exercising the kind of leadership that we ought to provide. The 
Federal Government should be the barometer, the leader in causing our 
country to function a certain way. I have always been told that you 
cannot lead where you do not go. So if we expect the private sector to 
come on line, then it is only apt that the Federal Government lead the 
way, lead the way in tolerance, nondiscrimination, and no retaliation 
against those who would exercise the right to be responsible.
  So again, Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) for their leadership on this issue, and urge strong support. I 
look forward to its passage.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me again thank the gentleman for this long journey 
that we took, and mention my thanks to the other body in the framework 
that I am allowed to do so in accordance with the rules of the House.
  Let me conclude by simply saying that we are our brothers' and 
sisters' keepers. I appreciate the distinguished gentleman from 
Illinois because of his leadership on civil service issues. His support 
on this is, of course, making it a bill that responds to all of our 
concerns.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that this bill helps the government 
to do its work. Part of the problem with the Environmental Protection 
Agency is that sociologists could not do science work, but they could 
do good sociologists work. The problems is that they were mistreated 
such that they were forced to do a certain kind of work that they were 
not prepared for, and therefore resulted in a whole series of 
inhospitable working conditions.
  So this legislation is good for the government because it creates an 
atmosphere where we can do our maximum best work, and work collectively 
together without discrimination.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to enthusiastically support H.R. 
165, the No FEAR Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is now reaching its final legislative 
consideration, and when the Senate amendments are concurred in, it will 
go to the White House for the President's signature. This shows that 
our system of representative government works.
  All too often we hear complaints that elected officials never listen, 
or, ``My speaking out does not make any difference.'' I think this bill 
shows that elected officials do listen, and a few people speaking out 
when they have right on their side can bring about a change in the laws 
of the United States of America, which I hope will have a far-reaching 
impact in preventing discrimination and retaliation within the Federal 
workforce.
  If it were not for the work of Dr. Marsha Coleman-Abebayo and the 
NAACP Federal Workforce Task Force, I do not think that the Congress 
could ever have known about how bad the situation was in the EPA. But 
they did speak out, they did present a convincing case. They convinced 
both the Committee on Science in the last Congress and the Committee on 
the Judiciary in this Congress, as well as this House and the other 
body, that we needed to change the law to try to clean up some of these 
abusive practices.
  I hope that this legislation will go a long way to doing this by 
making the

[[Page H1696]]

agency financially accountable for settlements and judgments caused by 
the misdeeds of their supervisors. The system does work, Mr. Speaker.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  I just wanted to add my appreciation to the NAACP and to all of the 
employees and the task force, and particularly acknowledge Mr. Kweisi 
Mfume, who was one of our witnesses, for his leadership and interest on 
this issue. I want to express my appreciation to all who were engaged 
in helping with this legislation.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
169, the NO FEAR legislation. This bill provides essential help to 
whistleblowers and those that suffer discrimination, and it penalizes 
agencies that attempt to practice discrimination or punish 
whistleblowers. Under current law, most judgments or awards against the 
federal government, including federal agencies, are paid out of a 
general judgment fund and are not attributed to, or accounted for, by 
the agency responsible for the claim. This bill requires federal 
agencies to reimburse the government's judgment fund for amounts paid 
out in response to a court settlement, award or judgment against an 
agency in a discrimination or whistleblower protection lawsuit. 
Hopefully, by making agencies responsible for their actions, we can 
further decrease the reprehensible practice of discrimination and the 
needless punishing of whistleblowers.
  This bill has several other important provisions which my colleague 
from Wisconsin has mentioned and so I would just like to take this 
opportunity to point out and recognize two individuals, Dr. Marsha 
Coleman-Adebayo and Mr. Leroy Warren, Jr. Both of these individuals 
live in my district, Montgomery County, Maryland and played an 
instrumental role in helping this legislation come to the floor today.
  Mr. Warren is Chairman of the NAACP Federal Sector Task Force and was 
asked to investigate and address the ever-growing number of complaints 
of discrimination within the federal government. Mr. Warren's task 
force did an admirable job in bringing to light much of the 
discrimination that federal employees faced.
  Dr. Coleman-Adebayo has become well known for her courageous fight 
against discrimination by the EPA.
  She is someone who suffered terribly from her battle but persevered 
and won her case against the EPA. She has testified in front of both 
the Science and Judiciary Committees to alert all of us to the 
seriousness of what transpired in her case. And now, hopefully, because 
of the NO FEAR bill, the first civil rights bill of the 21st Century, 
victims of racial, sexual, and hostile work environments, and 
whistleblowers, will not have to suffer the pain and abuse that Dr. 
Coleman-Adebayo endured. Let us hope instead that H.R. 169 will push 
federal agencies to spend their time devising effective plans to 
address all forms of discrimination in the workplace.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The question is on the 
motion offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that 
the House suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the 
bill, H.R. 169.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________