[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.
____________________