[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.

                          ____________________