[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 116 (Tuesday, July 11, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H5398-H5402]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FEDERAL EMPLOYEE ANTIDISCRIMINATION ACT OF 2017
Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 702) to amend the Notification and Federal Employee
Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 to strengthen Federal
antidiscrimination laws enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission and expand accountability within the Federal Government, and
for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 702
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 ``Federal Employee
Antidiscrimination Act of 2017''.
SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
Section 102 of the Notification and Federal Employee
Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (5 U.S.C. 2301
note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4), to read as follows:
``(4) accountability in the enforcement of Federal employee
rights is furthered when Federal agencies take appropriate
disciplinary action against Federal employees who have been
found to have committed discriminatory or retaliatory
acts;''; and
(2) in paragraph (5)(A)--
(A) by striking ``nor is accountability'' and inserting
``but accountability is not''; and
(B) by inserting ``for what by law the agency is
responsible'' after ``under this Act''.
SEC. 3. NOTIFICATION OF VIOLATION.
Section 202 of the Notification and Federal Employee
Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (5 U.S.C. 2301
note) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Notification of Final Agency Action.--
``(1) Not later than 30 days after a Federal agency takes
final action or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
issues an appellate decision involving a finding of
discrimination or retaliation prohibited by a provision of
law covered by paragraph (1) or (2) of section 201(a), as
applicable, the head of the agency subject to the finding
shall provide notice for at least 1 year on the agency's
Internet Web site in a clear and prominent location linked
directly from the agency's Internet home page stating that a
finding of discrimination or retaliation has been made.
``(2) The notification shall identify the date the finding
was made, the date or dates
[[Page H5399]]
on which the discriminatory or retaliatory act or acts
occurred, and the law or laws violated by the discriminatory
or retaliatory act or acts. The notification shall also
advise Federal employees of the rights and protections
available under the respective provisions of law covered by
paragraph (1) or (2) of section 201(a).''.
SEC. 4. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Electronic Format Requirement.--
(1) In general.--Section 203(a) of the Notification and
Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of
2002 (5 U.S.C. 2301 note) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``Homeland Security and'' before
``Governmental Affairs'';
(B) by inserting ``Oversight and'' before ``Government
Reform''; and
(C) by inserting ``(in an electronic format prescribed by
the Office of Personnel Management)'' after ``an annual
report''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)(C)
shall take effect on the date that is 1 year after the date
of enactment of this Act.
(3) Transition period.--Notwithstanding the requirements of
section 203(a) of the Notification and Federal Employee
Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (5 U.S.C. 2301
note), the report required under such section may be
submitted in an electronic format, as prescribed by the
Office of Personnel Management, during the period beginning
on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on the
effective date in paragraph (2).
(b) Reporting Requirement for Disciplinary Action.--Section
203 of such Act is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(c) Disciplinary Action Report.--Not later than 60 days
after the date on which a Federal agency takes final action
or a Federal agency receives an appellate decision issued by
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission involving a
finding of discrimination or retaliation in violation of a
provision of law covered by paragraph (1) or (2) of section
201(a), as applicable, the employing Federal agency shall
submit to the Commission a report stating whether
disciplinary action has been initiated against a Federal
employee as a result of the violation.''.
SEC. 5. DATA TO BE POSTED BY EMPLOYING FEDERAL AGENCIES.
Section 301(b) of the Notification and Federal Employee
Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (5 U.S.C. 2301
note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (9)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking the period at the
end and inserting ``, and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) for each such finding counted under subparagraph (A),
the agency shall specify--
``(i) the date of the finding;
``(ii) the affected agency;
``(iii) the law violated; and
``(iv) whether a decision has been made regarding necessary
disciplinary action as a result of the finding.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(11) Data regarding each class action complaint filed
against the agency alleging discrimination or retaliation,
including--
``(A) information regarding the date on which each
complaint was filed;
``(B) a general summary of the allegations alleged in the
complaint;
``(C) an estimate of the total number of plaintiffs joined
in the complaint if known;
``(D) the current status of the complaint, including
whether the class has been certified; and
``(E) the case numbers for the civil actions in which
discrimination or retaliation has been found.''.
SEC. 6. DATA TO BE POSTED BY THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION.
Section 302(b) of the Notification and Federal Employee
Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (5 U.S.C. 2301
note) is amended by striking ``(10)'' and inserting ``(11)''.
SEC. 7. NOTIFICATION AND FEDERAL EMPLOYEE ANTIDISCRIMINATION
AND RETALIATION ACT AMENDMENTS.
(a) Notification Requirements.--The Notification and
Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of
2002 (5 U.S.C. 2301 note) is amended by adding after section
206 the following:
``SEC. 207. COMPLAINT TRACKING.
``Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the
Federal Employee Antidiscrimination Act of 2017, each Federal
agency shall establish a system to track each complaint of
discrimination arising under section 2302(b)(1) of title 5,
United States Code, and adjudicated through the Equal
Employment Opportunity process from inception to resolution
of the complaint, including whether a decision has been made
regarding necessary disciplinary action as the result of a
finding of discrimination.
``SEC. 208. NOTATION IN PERSONNEL RECORD.
``If a Federal agency takes an adverse action covered under
section 7512 of title 5, United States Code, against a
Federal employee for an act of discrimination or retaliation
prohibited by a provision of law covered by paragraph (1) or
(2) of section 201(a), the agency shall, after all appeals
relating to such action have been exhausted, include a
notation of the adverse action and the reason for the action
in the employee's personnel record.''.
(b) Processing and Referral.--The Notification and Federal
Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (5
U.S.C. 2301 note) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``TITLE IV--PROCESSING AND REFERRAL
``SEC. 401. PROCESSING AND RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS.
``Each Federal agency is responsible for the fair,
impartial processing and resolution of complaints of
employment discrimination and retaliation arising in the
Federal administrative process and shall establish a model
Equal Employment Opportunity Program that--
``(1) is not under the control, either structurally or
practically, of a Human Capital or General Counsel office;
``(2) is devoid of internal conflicts of interest and
ensures fairness and inclusiveness within the organization;
and
``(3) ensures the efficient and fair resolution of
complaints alleging discrimination or retaliation.
``SEC. 402. NO LIMITATION ON HUMAN CAPITAL OR GENERAL COUNSEL
ADVICE.
``Nothing in this title shall prevent a Federal agency's
Human Capital or General Counsel office from providing advice
or counsel to Federal agency personnel on the processing and
resolution of a complaint, including providing legal
representation to a Federal agency in any proceeding.
``SEC. 403. HEAD OF PROGRAM REPORTS TO HEAD OF AGENCY.
``The head of each Federal agency's Equal Employment
Opportunity Program shall report directly to the head of the
agency.
``SEC. 404. REFERRALS OF FINDINGS OF DISCRIMINATION.
``(a) EEOC Findings of Discrimination.--Not later than 30
days after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issues
an appellate decision involving a finding of discrimination
or retaliation within a Federal agency, the Commission shall
refer the matter to the Office of Special Counsel.
``(b) Referrals to Special Counsel.--The Office of Special
Counsel shall accept and review a referral from the
Commission under subsection (a) for purposes of seeking
disciplinary action under its authority against a Federal
employee who commits an act of discrimination or retaliation.
``(c) Notification.--The Office of Special Counsel shall
notify the Commission in a case in which the Office of
Special Counsel initiates disciplinary action.
``(d) Special Counsel Approval.--A Federal agency may not
take disciplinary action against a Federal employee for an
alleged act of discrimination or retaliation referred by the
Commission under this section except in accordance with the
requirements of section 1214(f) of title 5, United States
Code.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--The table of contents in
section 1(b) of the Notification and Federal Employee
Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (5 U.S.C. 2301
note) is amended--
(1) by inserting after the item relating to section 206 the
following:
``Sec. 207. Complaint tracking.
``Sec. 208. Notation in personnel record.'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``TITLE IV--PROCESSING AND REFERRAL
``Sec. 401. Processing and resolution of complaints.
``Sec. 402. No limitation on Human Capital or General Counsel advice.
``Sec. 403. Head of Program reports to head of agency.
``Sec. 404. Referrals of findings of discrimination.''.
SEC. 8. NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT LIMITATION.
Section 2302(b) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (13)--
(A) by inserting ``or the Office of Special Counsel'' after
``Inspector General'';
(B) by striking ``implement'' and inserting ``(A)
implement''; and
(C) by striking the period that follows the quoted material
and inserting ``; or''; and
(2) by adding after subparagraph (A), as added by paragraph
(1)(B), and preceding the flush left matter that follows
paragraph (13), the following:
``(B) implement or enforce any nondisclosure policy, form,
or agreement, if such policy, form, or agreement prohibits or
restricts an employee from disclosing to Congress, the Office
of Special Counsel, or an Office of the Inspector General any
information that relates to any violation of any law, rule,
or regulation, or mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an
abuse of authority, or a substantial, and specific danger to
public health or safety, or any other whistleblower
protection.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. DeSantis) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
General Leave
Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
[[Page H5400]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 702, the Federal
Employee Antidiscrimination Act of 2017, introduced by my colleague on
the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the ranking member,
Elijah Cummings.
I should note that Mr. Cummings is unable to be with us here today
for this important bill. He is recuperating from surgery, and we wish
him a speedy recovery.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 702 amends the Notification and Federal Employee
Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002, or the NO FEAR Act, to
better identify and correct issues of discrimination throughout the
Federal Government. Ranking Member Cummings introduced H.R. 702 in
response to problems identified in the Baltimore office of the Social
Security Administration.
The bill requires Federal agencies to establish a system to track
Equal Employment Opportunity complaints from beginning to end. This
system must also track any disciplinary action that resulted from a
finding of a discriminatory act.
{time} 1615
The bill also requires both the disciplinary action and the reason
for the action to be included in the employee's personnel record.
Mr. Speaker, this bill implements notification and reporting
requirements for instances of discrimination within Federal agencies.
Agencies must provide a notice on an internal website if the agency or
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission finds that a discriminatory or
retaliatory act has occurred.
The bill requires agencies to submit a report to the EEOC if such an
act has occurred. The report must include any disciplinary action
initiated against an employee for discrimination or retaliation against
another employee.
Lastly, the bill bars agencies from using nondisclosure agreements to
restrict Federal employees from reporting waste, fraud, and abuse to
Congress, the Office of Special Counsel, and Inspector General.
I thank Mr. Cummings for his work on this piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 702, the Federal
Employee Antidiscrimination Act of 2017, as amended.
I also thank my good friend, Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, for his
work on this measure and for his leadership and passion of our
committee's ongoing efforts to ensure that Federal equal opportunity
programs truly guarantee equal opportunity.
Most agencies are careful to ensure that their personnel policies
protect employees' rights and that their EEO programs ensure that if
discrimination does occur, employees can seek fair and timely redress.
Unfortunately, there have been instances in which agencies fail to
meet the standards of a model EEO program. When that occurs,
hardworking Federal employees are harmed.
For example, during the last Congress, the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform conducted a number of hearings to examine how
allegations of harassment and retaliation were handled at the National
Park Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, including the
Forest Service.
In the case of the Park Service, a former superintendent of the Grand
Canyon, one of our premier parks, received a report in 2013 documenting
multiple allegations of sexual harassment. But rather than determining
whether further investigation was warranted or disciplinary action
should be pursued, the superintendent attempted to bury the report.
A year later, more than a dozen current and former employees sent
their allegations directly to the Secretary of the Interior. The
Secretary referred those allegations to the Inspector General. After an
extensive investigation, the IG found ``a long-term pattern of sexual
harassment and a hostile work environment'' at the Grand Canyon River
District.
The Inspector General's Office also identified more than 20 other
individuals who ``reported experiencing or witnessing sexual harassment
and hostile work environments,'' and the IG confirmed that previous
reports of sexual harassment ``were not properly investigated or
reported.''
As disturbing as these findings are, the Inspector General has also
found instances of sexual harassment and retaliation at other parks,
including iconic places like Yellowstone National Park and the
Canaveral National Seashore.
While the Park Service has announced measures to address the serious
shortcomings in its EEO programs, it is clear that deficiencies in
these programs are longstanding and have hurt numerous employees.
Similar chronic problems have occurred at the Department of
Agriculture. The EEO program there has now been the subject of two
extraordinary letters sent by the Office of Special Counsel to the
President of the United States.
In May 2015, the Special Counsel wrote to warn the President that
USDA's civil rights program ``has been seriously mismanaged, thereby
compromising the civil rights of USDA employees.''
Just last month, the Office of Special Counsel wrote again to the
President, finding that ``while the Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Civil Rights has taken positive steps to improve its performance,
based on the significant number of cases that are still subject to
delays, OSC has determined that the agency response is unreasonable in
part. USDA may need to devote more resources to the Office to ensure
that cases are promptly processed and hold senior supervisors
accountable for the mismanagement in this office.''
Such findings are not to be tolerated, and they highlight why this
bill, H.R. 702, the Federal Employee Antidiscrimination Act, is
urgently needed.
This measure would require that the head of an agency's EEO program
report directly to the head of the agency himself or herself. The
measure would also require that an agency's EEO program be operated
independently of its human resources or general counsel offices,
ensuring that the EEO program is focused solely on protecting the civil
rights of all employees and applicants.
H.R. 702 would strengthen the accountability mechanisms central to
the effectiveness of the EEO process. For example, the bill would
expand the notifications that agencies are required to provide when
discrimination is indeed found to have occurred, and it would require
agencies to track and report whether such findings resulted in any
disciplinary action.
The bill would also prohibit agencies from attempting to gag
employees by banning policies, forms, or agreements that seek to
prohibit or restrict an employee from disclosing to Congress, the
Office of Special Counsel, or an Office of the Inspector General any
information that might relate to a violation of any law, rule,
regulation, or waste, fraud, or abuse.
H.R. 702 is essentially identical to the bill we considered in the
last Congress, which passed the House by a vote of 403-0. I urge
Members to support the measure again.
As I close, Mr. Speaker, I join with Ranking Member Cummings in
urging the Senate to move on this measure as expeditiously as possible,
without the addition of extraneous and harmful amendments that might
seek to curtail due process rights of Federal employees.
Any employee who engages in discriminatory or retaliatory behavior or
who harasses another employee must be held accountable. The American
public expects no less. Current personnel policies and practices are
adequate to ensure that this can occur, and there is no need for any
amendment to this bill that would undermine or weaken employees' due
process rights.
Mr. Speaker, I talked to Representative Elijah Cummings recently. He
is doing great. He is full of fight and can't wait to get back here to
Congress. We expect to see him shortly.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, and I wish
Mr. Cummings a speedy recovery.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H5401]]
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
702, the Federal Employee Antidiscrimination Act of 2017, as amended.
I thank all of the bill's co-sponsors, including Representatives
Norton, Sensenbrenner and Jackson Lee, for working with me on this
measure and for their commitment to strengthening federal Equal
Employment Opportunity (EEO) programs.
I also thank Tanya Ward Jordan, Paulette Taylor, and all the members
of the Coalition 4 Change (C4C) for their years of work on this measure
and their perseverance.
H.R. 702 is essentially identical to H.R. 1557, which was considered
in the last Congress. That legislation passed the House by a vote of
403-0. However, the bill did not pass the Senate before the end of the
114th Congress. I am hopeful that this year, we can finally get this
measure over the finish line and to the President's desk for signature.
I authored H.R. 702 to make long-overdue reforms of federal EEO
programs to ensure that they are better able to protect the rights of
federal employees and applicants for federal employment.
Federal EEO programs exist to uphold the guarantee of equal
opportunity that is the right of every citizen in this nation and to
ensure that any barriers impeding fairness in personnel decisions are
identified and eliminated.
While the vast majority of federal workplaces comply with current EEO
requirements, some federal agencies still have not met the standards of
a model EEO program set forth by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC).
For example, in 2014, the EEOC issued a report on the Social Security
Administration (SSA) that made 12 findings regarding SSA's failure to
maintain a model EEOC program, ensure efficient management of the
complaint process, provide uniform training to ensure equal
opportunities, and implement effective and efficient anti-harassment
policies and procedures.
The EEOC made more than 60 recommendations for reform of that one
program alone.
Last year, bi-partisan investigations conducted by the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform of the National Park Service and the
U.S. Forest Service found significant deficiencies in both agencies'
EEO programs.
At both agencies, employees suffered when their complaints of
discrimination were not handled in a fair and timely manner. Employees
were also harmed by agencies' failure to safeguard complainants'
personal information.
To help end these failings, my bill would require that EEO programs
operate independently of an agency's human resources or general counsel
offices--and that the head of the program reports directly to the head
of an agency. This would ensure that effective implementation of the
EEO program is prioritized at the highest level of an agency--and that
it operates with the sole purpose of ensuring equal opportunity for all
employees.
H.R. 702 would also strengthen the accountability mechanisms that are
central to the effectiveness of the EEO process.
Further, H.R. 702 would make clear that agencies cannot impose any
nondisclosure agreement on federal employees to prohibit employees from
disclosing fraud or illegal actions to Congress, the Office of Special
Counsel (OSC), or an Inspector General.
According to the 2014 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, only 60
percent of federal employees agreed that they could, quote, ``disclose
a suspected violation of any law, rule or regulation without fear of
reprisal.''
The Federal Employee Antidiscrimination Act would help ensure that
federal employees can report discrimination without suffering
retaliation--and that such reports will be thoroughly and fairly
investigated and adjudicated in a timely manner.
Finally, as I close, I want to address some of the issues that arose
during consideration of this measure in the Senate Homeland Security
Committee last year.
I want to be crystal clear that I believe that supervisors who engage
in discriminatory or retaliatory action must be held accountable.
However, this can be accomplished without curtailing any existing due
process rights for federal employees and I will continue to oppose all
efforts to roll back any due process right.
I urge all Members to support H.R. 702, and I hope that in this
Congress, we can finally enact this measure into law.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
702, the ``Federal Employee Antidiscrimination Act of 2017.''
I support this legislation because it ensures agencies effectively
implement their Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) programs and that
federal employees are never prevented from disclosing discriminatory or
wasteful actions to Congress, the Office of Special Counsel, or
Inspectors General.
Let me express my thanks to Ranking Member Cummings for introducing
this critical legislation that is essential to ensuring that our
federal workplaces are free from discrimination, and that any barriers
impeding fairness in personnel decisions are identified and eliminated.
This is not the first time we have addressed and offered legislation
regarding workplace equality.
In 2002, the ``No Fear Act'' was first introduced in Congress and set
the precedent for imposing additional duties upon Federal agency
employers that are intended to reinvigorate their longstanding
obligation to provide a work environment free of discrimination and
retaliation.
On October 2, 2000, the House Science Committee held a hearing
entitled ``Intolerance at EPA--Harming People, Harming Science?''
Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo, an EPA whistleblower, won a 600,000
dollar 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
Congressman 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.''
Mr. Speaker, no employee should fear voicing their concerns in
reference to a safer more work conducive environment.
According to the 2014 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, only 60
percent of federal employees agreed that they could quote, ``disclose a
suspected violation of any law, rule or regulation without fear of
reprisal.''
We must do better and ensure employees have confidence that they can
report an act of discrimination without suffering retaliation.
Employees need to know that EEO reports will be thoroughly, fairly,
and timely investigated and adjudicated.
H.R. 702 would require that EEO programs operate independently of an
agency's human resources or general counsel offices.
This bill requires the head of the program report directly to the
head of an agency and the act would prohibit the use of non-disclosure
agreements that restrict an employee from disclosing to Congress, the
Office of Special Counsel, or instance of waste, fraud or abuse.
We often look at individuals or groups who step forward as
whistleblowers.
This term has been used with a negative connotation to describe
insubordinate employees, but history has shown us that whistleblowers
are often heroes that have shed light on employers' illegal practices
and as a result made the workplace better for future employees.
Mark Felt, the FBI agent known as deep throat during the Watergate
Scandal of the 1970s.
Frank Serpico, New York police officer who confronted his department
for the rampant corruption the leadership let take place.
Jeffrey Wigand, a tobacco executive who admitted that tobacco
companies knew they were putting addictive chemicals into their
cigarettes.
And Sherron Watkins, an executive of the Enron corporation who was
vital in exposing the financial lies and frauds of the company.
All these individuals stood up against well-established corporations
and agencies even when others doubted their claims.
We must protect these types of acts in Federal offices and
successfully implement the Equal Employment Opportunity Programs (EEO).
Mr. Speaker, in a sense every Member of Congress is a whistleblower
for the people in that uncovering and correcting problems in the
agencies that administer the laws is an essential part of our oversight
responsibilities.
As a senior member of the Committees on Homeland Security and the
Judiciary, and as Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, I understand
the importance of safe and discrimination free workplaces.
By strengthening existing requirements to ensure federal EEO programs
meet high standards, we are implementing the best practices available
to combat workplace discrimination.
It is our duty as Members of Congress to be whistleblowers, bring
attention to this pressing matter, and put a stop to injustices
occurring in the workforce.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 702, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
[[Page H5402]]
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________