[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 163 (Wednesday, October 11, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H7930-H7935]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1245
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 585, DR. CHRIS KIRKPATRICK
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT OF 2017; PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING
THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 16, 2017, THROUGH OCTOBER 20, 2017; AND
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 562 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 562
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 585) to
provide greater whistleblower protections for Federal
employees, increased awareness of Federal whistleblower
protections, and increased accountability and required
discipline for Federal supervisors who retaliate against
whistleblowers, and for other purposes. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions
in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform; and (2) one motion to
recommit.
Sec. 2. On any legislative day during the period from
October 16, 2017, through October 20, 2017--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 3. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
Sec. 4. It shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of October 12, 2017, or October 13, 2017, for
the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the
rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his
designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or her
designee on the designation of any matter for consideration
pursuant to this section.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
to include extraneous material on House Resolution 562, currently under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule
forward on behalf of the Rules Committee.
Yesterday, the Rules Committee heard testimony from our colleagues,
Congressman Paul Mitchell, Oversight and Government Reform Committee
Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, and Congresswoman Ann Kuster.
[[Page H7931]]
This rule provides for the consideration of S. 585, the Dr. Chris
Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act. The rule provides for 1 hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the
ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and
provides for a motion to recommit.
S. 585 was authored by Senator Johnson in the Senate, and the House
companion was introduced by my friend, Congressman Sean Duffy. I want
to thank my colleagues from Wisconsin for their leadership on this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses a problem that is, unfortunately,
far too common. When Federal employees blow the whistle on questionable
practices, they face risk of retaliation and intimidation from their
own employers, even though the current Federal law is supposed to
protect them. In fact, the underlying legislation provided for by this
rule is named after an individual who ultimately took his own life
after he became the victim of retaliation related to his
whistleblowing.
Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick was a Department of Veterans Affairs doctor who
raised concerns that the VA might be overmedicating patients. A later
VA investigation found that Dr. Kirkpatrick's concerns were warranted,
but it was too late. Dr. Kirkpatrick had already suffered retribution
from within the VA and was eventually dismissed from the agency. On the
day of his termination, Dr. Kirkpatrick took his own life.
Dr. Kirkpatrick's story is a tragedy, one that none of us ever wants
to see repeated.
The Department of Veterans Affairs has become a de facto poster child
for hostility toward whistleblowers. In fact, according to the Office
of Special Counsel--the agency tasked with investigation and redressing
whistleblower retaliation--the OSC has seen a sharp increase in the
number of whistleblower cases from VA employees.
OSC Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner went on to say that: `` . . . it
is clear that the workplace culture in many VA facilities is hostile to
whistleblowers and actively discourages them from coming forward with
what is often critical information.''
This disturbing trend may be most visible at the VA, but the problem
of backlash against whistleblowers persists across the Federal
Government.
Let me make something clear. There are good actors and bad actors
within each agency. There are good actors who shine light on the
legitimate concerns in order to help their colleagues and the American
people. There are also good actors who listen to those concerns and
address them with integrity, and treat whistleblowers with respect.
Unfortunately, there are also bad actors. These are the ones that
this legislation seeks to address, and the problem they create is the
one that the underlying bill works to solve.
The underlying legislation provides for better training for Federal
employees so that they understand Federal whistleblower protections. It
also sets minimum disciplinary standards across all agencies for
retaliation against whistleblowers while increasing protections for
people who have the courage to speak up when they discover a problem.
The bill specifically requires the Department of Veterans Affairs to
determine a plan to restrict unauthorized employee access to medical
files, which--and it disturbs me to say this--has been used as a method
of retaliation against whistleblowers.
This legislation would make much-needed changes to ensure that those
who come forward with information necessary to maintain and increase
accountability within our government do not suffer backlash as well.
Importantly, the bill also helps these individuals to know their
rights and what protections and recourse are available to them.
It is unfortunate that we need this legislation, but evidence has
indicated that we do. The underlying legislation puts bullies who have
made their nest in government agencies on notice that their behavior
won't stand. It defends brave whistleblowers and puts the bad actor
Federal employees on notice: hostile work environments that target
whistleblowers are on the bureaucracy's endangered species list.
The Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act also builds on
the work the current administration is doing to address retribution
levied against whistleblowers at the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Importantly, I have colleagues on both sides of the aisle who agree
that we need to address this problem and that the time to do so is now.
The Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act passed the
Senate by unanimous consent on May 25, 2017. We need to continue their
good work here today.
On behalf of the whistleblowers who have risked their careers and
safety to right wrongs in our government, we need to support this
strong and timely legislation. Calling for attention and action to
address improper behavior within the United States Government should
not be considered a risky undertaking.
Many Federal employees work day in and day out on behalf of the
American people, yet some feel threatened when they try in earnest to
make things better.
We need to continue the Senate's work on behalf of these individuals
and the Americans that they serve. Everyone deserves a government that
is accountable for its own decisions and for the actions of its agents.
Today we have a chance to make strides towards a more accountable
government. We have the opportunity to address the most pressing
problems facing whistleblowers at the Department of Veterans Affairs
and across the Federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. As my colleague noted,
Dr. Kirkpatrick was a psychologist at a VA medical center in Wisconsin.
In 2009, he was fired from his job after allegedly questioning the
overmedication of his patients, particularly related to opioids.
Tragically, that very same day, Dr. Kirkpatrick committed suicide.
I think we can all agree that protecting whistleblowers helps to
ensure that waste, fraud, and abuse in our government does not go
unnoticed or ignored.
It is our responsibility to empower and encourage whistleblowers to
come forward and speak out when something isn't right. No one should
have to live in fear of retaliation for bringing the truth to light. No
one should fear losing their job or career or their life simply for
following the rules.
The Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act increases
accountability by enacting mandatory punishments for any manager or
superior at an agency who has been found to have retaliated against a
whistleblower.
The bill also contains VA-specific reforms to better protect the
privacy of medical records. Employee medical records would now be
prohibited from being accessed in the case of potential retaliation
cases, which adds an additional level of accountability for
supervisors; and protecting the whistleblower from attacks and threats
based on their personal medical history, which would be completely
inappropriate.
Mr. Speaker, while there are strong and necessary reforms in this
bill, I want to make sure that you know that legislation can always be
improved through the amendment process or at least through conducting a
hearing and markup of a bill.
Sadly, but unsurprisingly in this Congress, this bill didn't have a
markup in committee; didn't have a hearing; is considered under a
closed rule, where amendments that were brought forward aren't even
allowed to be debated on the House floor.
This might be a surprise even to the chairman of the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, who himself requested a structured
rule that allowed for debate on amendments.
Much of my statement today echoes the sentiment of Oversight and
Government Reform Ranking Member Cummings and his testimony yesterday
evening in the Rules Committee. Though this bill isn't perfect, it can
be improved and strengthened by a few relatively straightforward
amendments, which, unfortunately, were shut
[[Page H7932]]
down in the Rules Committee last night.
The first amendment, which was blocked today, would have addressed
the bill's constitutional concerns first raised by the Office of
Personnel Management by revising the mandatory disciplinary procedures
to allow superiors their constitutional rights to due process in
responding to accusations of retaliation. It would have improved the
bill and made it more likely to stand up in court to challenge.
An amendment reaffirming the right to due process would have been
something at least worth voting on, and, in fact, could have preserved
the constitutionality of the core elements of this bill, ensuring that
it stays in place to protect whistleblowers.
Another amendment blocked under this rule would have addressed
privacy concerns contained in the bill. Specifically, the amendment
would have protected the privacy of a whistleblower who commits
suicide, by requiring the permission of the whistleblower's next of kin
before an agency can share information regarding the suicide.
Again, it seems like a straightforward fix to protect the privacy of
whistleblowers and their families. At the very least, even if Members
of this body disagreed with it, why didn't we at least bring it forward
for debate and a vote?
Another amendment that was blocked today contained the text of Mr.
Cummings' bill, H.R. 702, which was passed by the House of
Representatives unanimously. As you know, this bill would expand
protections for employees who face discrimination, and it solidifies
our commitment to protecting whistleblowers and other employees from
retaliation. It was a bipartisan bill. It passed the House unanimously.
We simply should have allowed it under this bill to become part of a
related effort.
Now, I know that my colleagues on the other side will say: Oh, the
Senate is slow. They won't take up this bill on time. It is better for
us to pass something now than have to wait for their approval.
But it only takes 10 minutes usually to debate an amendment. So we
could have allowed three amendments and spent no more than 30 minutes
debating them and still reported this bill out expeditiously.
Now, I happen to think that, while there are many on the other side
of the aisle who would agree the House needs to return to regular
order, it is time that Members actually started by voting according to
what they are saying. By voting ``no'' on this rule and rejecting it,
we can send the message to House leadership that we want an open,
regular order process.
Bills should come out of committee through markups. Republicans and
Democrats should have the opportunity to amend bills on the floor of
the House. Perhaps if we did that more often, the Senate would not
simply cast aside many of the bills that have passed the House, knowing
that they went through the process of deliberate consideration by our
body, rather than a bill that appears fully formed where Members of
this body simply get an up-or-down vote.
This bill will enjoy bipartisan support when it passes the House
later today, as it should, but it also begs the question of: Why are we
spending valuable time debating a noncontroversial bill, especially if
it is considered under a closed rule? Why not have simply put it up on
suspension in the first place?
To say things bluntly, we are actually running out of time this year.
By my count, we only have 30 legislative days left in the first half of
the 115th Congress, yet we are faced with so many important issues we
need to move forward on.
Nine million children face losing their health insurance because
Congress has not yet acted to reauthorize CHIP. Almost 1 million young,
aspiring Americans have no idea what their lives will look like 6
months from now because of the President's decision to end DACA and
Congress's continued inability to make it permanent law. The citizens
of Puerto Rico, American citizens, still have not been granted a
Federal aid package and are suffering from a lack of food, clean water,
healthcare supplies, and electricity, jeopardizing many of their lives
today.
Yet here we are debating a bill without even allowing an amendment
process that we could have passed under suspension vote yesterday so we
could move on to CHIP, to Puerto Rico, to DACA today, rather than spend
one of our 30 remaining days of business this year avoiding the topics
that the American people want us to take on.
Despite the important goals we have left to accomplish this year, it
is misleading to assume that regular order isn't feasible. We have all
seen how fast Congress can work when we are pushed right up to the
edge. It is past time that we show that same urgency and commitment in
considering legislation under regular order, even if it means we have
to stay here on Thursdays and Fridays, even if it means we are working
until 8 or 9 or 10 or midnight. The American people deserve no less.
Make no mistake, the Whistleblower Protection Act is an important
piece of legislation that will help protect whistleblowers and hold
Federal agencies accountable, but if we are going to devote this much
time to legislation that protects employees, let's take it a step
further and talk about expanding worker protections for an even greater
number of Americans.
For example, my legislation, the Giving Workers a Fair Shot Act--
which I introduced last session and this session, and has yet to
receive a hearing, no less a markup in the Education and Workforce
Committee--would protect workers from wage theft, prevent taxpayer
funds from going towards union busting, and establish first contract
arbitration to prevent companies from dragging on labor negotiations
unnecessarily to the detriment of workers.
{time} 1300
We don't have time to waste. If we are going to consider an issue,
let's dive in. We can protect whistleblowers from retaliation and
strengthen the rights of workers at the same time. Given the minimal
amount of time we have left to work with, 30 days this year, we have an
obligation to do both.
By the way, the fact that we only work 30 more days this year here in
the United States Congress probably comes as a great surprise to many
hardworking Americans who are accustomed to working 5 days a week. We
have the rest of the month of October, November, December. Well, many
Americans might get Christmas Day off, perhaps even Christmas Eve, but
I don't think Americans realize that Congress is only going to work 30
days out of the next 78 days. That is less than a half-time job, Mr.
Speaker.
I think the American people deserve more from us in this body,
especially when so many issues like CHIP, like DACA, like Puerto Rico,
and many others have gone unanswered by us in this body, the House of
Representatives, or by colleagues across the way in the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may
consume to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).
Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this rule
and the underlying bill, S. 585, the Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick
Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017.
This bill strengthens penalties against those who retaliate against
whistleblowers, adds protections and opportunities for whistleblowers
placed on probation, and ensures Federal employees have a greater
knowledge of whistleblower rights and protections.
Specifically, this bill forbids a supervisor from taking or
threatening to take action against an employee because they refuse to
obey an order that would violate a law, rule, or regulation.
I want to thank Senator Ron Johnson for his persistence in pushing
this legislation even after the former Senator Harry Reid shut it down
last Congress.
What a poignant and meaningful gesture to name this bill after Dr.
Chris Kirkpatrick, a VA employee who took his own life after being
subjected to cruel retaliation from VA officials. I hope it puts in
perspective the immense emotional burdens that victims of retaliation
face.
Mr. Speaker, this issue is personal for me. Unfortunately, I have
seen exactly what retaliation against whistleblowers looks like, how
easy it is to get
[[Page H7933]]
away with it, and why we have to put a stop to it.
Last week marked the 3-year anniversary since the director of the
central Alabama VA became the first senior manager in the country fired
as a result of the wait-list scandal. That was a major step towards
turning around one of the Nation's worst VA systems and restoring trust
with the veteran population it serves.
Mr. Speaker, I can say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it would
have never happened without brave whistleblowers inside the VA telling
me the truth.
Two brave individuals in particular, Sheila Meuse and Rich Tremaine,
told me the truth about major instances of misconduct and mismanagement
when no one else would. Seeing no other way to achieve change, they
finally told their story to the media, at great personal risk to their
careers.
The stories that emerged from these exposures were almost
unbelievable:
More than 1,000 X-ray cancer screenings were lost and unread for
years, even though some showed malignancies. When alerted to the
problem, top administrators tried to cover this up.
A pulmonologist manipulated more than 1,200 patient records but, even
after being caught twice, was still given a satisfactory review.
A central Alabama VA employee took a recovering veteran to a crack
house and bought him drugs and prostitutes in order to extort his VA
payments. Even when caught, this employee was not fired until a year
and a half later when we exposed it in the newspaper.
Mr. Speaker, this behavior is egregious, and, trust me, there is a
lot more where it came from.
However, had it not been for the courage of those on the inside to
expose this wrongdoing, the world might not have ever known. To me and
to the veterans whose lives they might have saved, they are heroes. But
that is not how they were treated by VA officials. They were treated as
enemies and outcasts, all because they tried to do the right thing.
Rich Tremaine actually testified here before the Veterans' Affairs
Committee, detailing the systemic way that some VA officials attempted
to silence and marginalize him. The effects of him blowing the whistle
on wrongdoing follow him to this day, far away from Montgomery,
Alabama.
Mr. Speaker, my experience working to clean house at the VA taught me
a fascinating and frustrating truth about the culture in some parts of
the VA. The system routinely goes out of its way to protect those who
don't do their jobs or even harm veterans, but then goes after those
who try to stop that misbehavior.
For years, because of poorly written civil service laws and powerful
unions, too many VA employees got the message that misconduct,
negligence, and poor performance would be tolerated, but blowing the
whistle on that kind of behavior would not be.
I have seen it too many times. All too frequently, VA employees
caught for doing the wrong thing are reprimanded, shuffled around to
different jobs, or allowed to quietly retire, but those who try to do
the right thing by our veterans by shining a light on misconduct are
persecuted, intimidated, or worse.
While I am proud of the work that we have done for the last 3 years
to put an end to this unacceptable culture at the VA, there is much
work left to be done.
Mr. Speaker, there is a reason why Federal employees face retaliation
for speaking up. It is not because people are just naturally mean or
because there is some kind of misunderstanding. The reason
whistleblowers face systemic retaliation is because it works. When a
brave whistleblower faces intimidation or persecution for their action,
every other employee sees it, and they know what will happen to them if
they tell the truth. It has a powerful, chilling effect--one we saw
firsthand in Montgomery.
They retaliate because it works. That is just wrong, and it is time
to punish those who do it with harsher penalties. We need to rethink
our civil service laws in this country to make sure public servants
live up to the honor and responsibility of the public trust, and I
believe that this bill is another positive step in that direction. Mr.
Speaker, that is why I urge my colleagues to bring it to the floor by
supporting this rule.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, President Trump has been relentless on his attack on
immigrant Americans, generally, and, in particular, DREAMers since he
took office. Yet 82 percent of American voters, including about 70
percent of Republicans, believe DREAMers should be allowed to stay in
the U.S. and apply for citizenship. Yet President Trump has continued
to turn his back on these innocent young people.
Mr. Speaker, here is our chance to rectify President Trump's decision
and restore the American people's faith in us and our faith in our
aspiring Americans.
When we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to
the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan,
bicameral legislation would help thousands of young people who are de
facto Americans in every way except for on paper.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania). Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question today, we
can bring forward the Dream Act, which I am confident would pass on the
floor of the House probably by a good margin.
What the Dream Act does is it allows young people who grew up in our
country, who know no other country, a pathway to become citizens. They
have gone to our schools, they have been on the football team or
cheerleaders like your own kids or grandkids, Mr. Speaker.
They are able to work legally in our country because of the deferred
action program, which is scheduled by President Trump to be canceled in
4\1/2\ months. We need to act now to give these young people the
certainty they need to live their lives as Americans, the only country
they know, and the only country that they are loyal to.
We simply don't have time to waste. We need to give these young de
facto Americans the certainty they need to continue with their lives to
be able to contribute to our country, join our military, pay taxes, and
all of the other responsibilities that Americans have.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, protecting whistleblowers is important. It is
critical to ensure that our democracy functions honestly and with
accountability and government is truly working in the best interests of
the people that it serves. But we could get there a better way, by
having an open process that allows Democrats and Republicans to suggest
further improvements to whistleblower protection rather than having a
bill that was never marked up in committee, that simply appeared fully
formed for the full House to consider without the opportunity for
Democrats or Republicans to make it any better.
The Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act will
strengthen the rights of whistleblowers and reaffirm their value and
importance to our country. But once again, this bill should have gone
through a regular process that allowed us to amend it.
The fact that this bill passed the Senate with bipartisan support
shouldn't stop us from making changes in this body, the House of
Representatives, to improve the bill and make it work even better. We
have an obligation to our constituents to thoughtfully consider every
piece of legislation in front of us and to amend where we see fit.
As we move forward on addressing the pressing issues in front of us,
such as finding a path forward on deferred action, which we will
present if we can defeat the previous question, reauthorizing CHIP, or
making improvements in our healthcare system, let's do it through a
regular process that allows Democrats and Republicans, the 435 of us
who serve here, to bring forward our ideas, not just the ideas of
leadership in making the country a better place.
We have good, smart, deliberate Members on both sides of the aisle
who want to work, want to legislate. It is ridiculous that we only have
30 days out of the next 78 in which Congress
[[Page H7934]]
will even be working, and I suspect for most of the 30 days, like
today, Democrats and Republicans won't even be able to offer their
ideas and have them considered. The American people deserve better.
We as an institution, as the United States Congress, can do better,
and we can begin by defeating the previous question and defeating the
rule.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's concern, especially for the
piece of legislation that is before us. I think it is a step forward
and things that we should be doing and things that are the oversight
role of this Congress, especially when we are dealing with the issue of
whistleblowers and the value that they bring, and also the culture that
seems to have pervaded.
I so appreciate the gentlewoman from Alabama and her stories. We, in
Georgia, have had similar issues. We had that in the Augusta medical
center. We also had it in others.
I think the issue here today, though, and I want to be very clear,
Mr. Speaker, many times when we come to the floor, there is this
discussion and it gets circulated that we are actually against all
Federal employees, or that every Federal employee is bad, and that none
of the Federal employees are worth their payment or whatever. That is
just not true. The work of the vast majority of the VA employees, the
workers of the vast majority of the agencies, although we may have
philosophical differences on how big some of our agencies should be or
if they should be in the role of Federal Government, at the end of the
day, the value and the worth of the Federal employee is never
questioned, at least by this Member.
But when we find bad actors, when we find bad policies, when we find
bad procedures, when we find things that inherently are wrong and they
are kept wrong, as the gentlewoman from Alabama so well pointed out,
that when the culture becomes protecting the bad and punishing the
good, then we have an issue that has developed far beyond the scope of
what it should be.
These are some of the things that we are discussing today, and I
think it is worth the time on this floor, it is worth the time on the
Senate floor, as they have already passed this bill, and I think the
concerns raised are the discussion of which has been addressed in this.
I think what we look at today is today's bill is a necessary step,
but I believe toward integrity, Mr. Speaker. My colleagues and I owe it
to our neighbors and to Federal employees who serve to increase
whistleblower protections. We need a clear path for public servants to
serve Americans with the knowledge that we will honor their good
character and courage. They should not feel alone in their resolve to
improve the VA or any other agency. Yet too often, we have seen the
current law leave them at the mercy of bad actors. We must strengthen
the existing statutes to address the litany of retaliations aimed at
whistleblowers.
The bill today will deter agency officials from targeting
whistleblowers for shining a light on dark flaws in their organization.
Bad actors are even today evading discipline while whistleblowers who
strive to do what is right too often endure punishment for their brave
actions.
The whistleblowers are on the losing end of a system that often
favors mischief, which means that the American public also suffers.
This bill will bring relief to Federal truth tellers and the everyday
Americans who depend on their services.
We best serve the American people by protecting whistleblowers,
addressing their concerns properly, and investigating their claims with
transparency.
{time} 1315
The Federal Government exists to protect its citizens by holding
wrongdoers accountable. It is designed to support those who work to
root out wrongs in the system.
The underlying legislation brings us closer to a Federal system run
by the people and for the benefit of the people, not for the benefit of
a few bad actors who exploit its structure. It delivers justice to both
victims and bad actors, protects whistleblowers who act in good faith,
and ensures that the American Government better serves the American
people.
At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, is that not what it is all about?
At the end of the day, is it not what we as a Congress and as a House
and a Senate should be about, and that is assuring that the people who
we are elected to serve are best served by their own tax dollars
through the agencies and processes of the Federal Government to provide
basic services to our veterans, who serve in our other agencies, who,
at the core of this, actually comes down--to me, this is a protection
of whistleblowers. But in a bigger role, it is actually a protection of
the currency that is the best that can be used in our Federal agencies,
and that is the trust of the American people.
When we are in the discussion of trust in the American people, right
now, many times, if you look around, the Federal Government may not be
in that trusted role because many times they see the actions of the bad
actors as opposed to many times the very shining lights of the good
actors. Those good actors who are willing to participate and to step
forward and to be a part of the solution and not a part of the problem
need that protection.
We cannot continue to perpetuate and turn a blind eye when this is so
relevant in our government. When we do this, we stand for those whom we
serve. We stand, not only for the districts in which we are elected,
but the American people who have taken to this institution to say: I
expect my trust to be exemplified in the employees of the Federal
Government and through the stewardship of their tax dollars.
The question for us today is not do we continue to protect the system
that is broken, but the question for us is to vote ``yes'' on this
previous question, to move this rule, and to move this bill, because
this is saying we value that integrity currency, we value those who are
willing to step forward at risk of themselves, in courage, to say: This
is wrong, we need to fix it, and let the chips fall where they may.
We protect the right. We punish the wrong. That is what this bill
does.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 562 Offered by Mr. Polis
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3440) to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment
of status of certain individuals who are long-term United
States residents and who entered the United States as
children and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and
reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then
on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately
after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of
rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3440.
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's
[[Page H7935]]
ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal
of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question
passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in
order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of
the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House
defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition
rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. 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, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________