[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 164 (Thursday, October 12, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H7998-H8004]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                              {time}  1315
       DR. CHRIS KIRKPATRICK WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT OF 2017

  Mr. BLUM. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 562, I call up 
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, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 562, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                 S. 585

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Dr. Chris 
     Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                      TITLE I--EMPLOYEES GENERALLY

Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. Stays; probationary employees.
Sec. 103. Prohibited personnel practices.
Sec. 104. Discipline of supervisors based on retaliation against 
              whistleblowers.
Sec. 105. Suicide by employees.
Sec. 106. Training for supervisors.
Sec. 107. Information on whistleblower protections.

           TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS EMPLOYEES

Sec. 201. Prevention of unauthorized access to medical records of 
              employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 202. Outreach on availability of mental health services available 
              to employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 203. Protocols to address threats against employees of the 
              Department of Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 204. Comptroller General of the United States study on 
              accountability of chiefs of police of Department of 
              Veterans Affairs medical centers.

                      TITLE I--EMPLOYEES GENERALLY

     SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title--
       (1) the term ``agency''--
       (A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), means an entity 
     that is an agency, as defined under section 2302 of title 5, 
     United States Code, without regard to whether one or more 
     portions of title 5 of the United States Code are 
     inapplicable to the entity; and
       (B) does not include any entity that is an element of the 
     intelligence community, as defined in section 3(4) of the 
     National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003(4));
       (2) the term ``employee'' means an employee (as defined in 
     section 2105 of title 5, United States Code) of an agency; 
     and
       (3) the term ``personnel action'' has the meaning given 
     that term under section 2302 of title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 102. STAYS; PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Request by Special Counsel.--Section 1214(b)(1) of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(E) If the Merit Systems Protection Board grants a stay 
     under this subsection, the head of the agency employing the 
     employee shall give priority to a request for a transfer 
     submitted by the employee.''.
       (b) Probationary Employees.--Section 1221 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(k) If the Merit Systems Protection Board grants a stay 
     to an employee in probationary status under subsection (c), 
     the head of the agency employing the employee shall give 
     priority to a request for a transfer submitted by the 
     employee.''.
       (c) Study Regarding Retaliation Against Probationary 
     Employees.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives a report discussing retaliation against 
     employees in probationary status.

     SEC. 103. PROHIBITED PERSONNEL PRACTICES.

       Section 2302(b) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (12), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (13), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (13) the following:
       ``(14) access the medical record of another employee or an 
     applicant for employment as a part of, or otherwise in 
     furtherance of, any conduct described in paragraphs (1) 
     through (13).''.

     SEC. 104. DISCIPLINE OF SUPERVISORS BASED ON RETALIATION 
                   AGAINST WHISTLEBLOWERS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 75 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 7515. Discipline of supervisors based on retaliation 
       against whistleblowers

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `agency'--
       ``(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), means an 
     entity that is an agency, as defined under section 2302, 
     without regard to whether any other provision of this chapter 
     is applicable to the entity; and
       ``(B) does not include any entity that is an element of the 
     intelligence community, as defined in section 3(4) of the 
     National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003(4));
       ``(2) the term `prohibited personnel action' means taking 
     or failing to take an action in violation of paragraph (8), 
     (9), or (14) of section 2302(b) against an employee of an 
     agency; and
       ``(3) the term `supervisor' means an employee who would be 
     a supervisor, as defined under section 7103(a), if the entity 
     employing the employee was an agency.
       ``(b) Proposed Disciplinary Actions.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the head of the agency employing a 
     supervisor, an administrative law judge, the Merit Systems 
     Protection Board, the Special Counsel, a judge of the United 
     States, or the Inspector General of the agency employing a 
     supervisor determines that the supervisor has committed a 
     prohibited personnel action, the head of the agency employing 
     the supervisor, in accordance with the procedures required 
     under paragraph (2)--
       ``(A) for the first prohibited personnel action committed 
     by a supervisor--
       ``(i) shall propose suspending the supervisor for a period 
     of not less than 3 days; and
       ``(ii) may, in addition to a suspension described in clause 
     (i), propose any other action, including a reduction in grade 
     or pay, that the head of the agency determines appropriate; 
     and
       ``(B) for the second prohibited personnel action committed 
     by a supervisor, shall propose removing the supervisor.
       ``(2) Procedures.--
       ``(A) Notice.--A supervisor against whom an action is 
     proposed to be taken under paragraph (1) is entitled to 
     written notice--
       ``(i) stating the specific reasons for the proposed action; 
     and
       ``(ii) informing the supervisor of the right of the 
     supervisor to review the material which is relied on to 
     support the reasons for the proposed action.
       ``(B) Answer and evidence.--
       ``(i) In general.--A supervisor who is notified under 
     subparagraph (A) that the supervisor is the subject of a 
     proposed action under paragraph (1) is entitled to 14 days 
     following such notification to answer and furnish evidence in 
     support of the answer.
       ``(ii) No evidence furnished; insufficient evidence.--After 
     the end of the 14-day period described in clause (i), if a 
     supervisor does not furnish evidence as described in clause 
     (i) or if the head of the agency determines that such 
     evidence is not sufficient to reverse the proposed action, 
     the head of the agency shall carry out the action.
       ``(C) Scope of procedures.--An action carried out under 
     this section--
       ``(i) except as provided in clause (ii), shall be subject 
     to the same requirements and procedures (including regarding 
     appeals) as an action under section 7503, 7513, or 7543; and
       ``(ii) shall not be subject to--

       ``(I) paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 7503(b);
       ``(II) paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) and 
     subsection (c) of section 7513; or
       ``(III) paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) and 
     subsection (c) of section 7543.

       ``(3) Delegation.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (B), the 
     head of an agency may delegate any authority or 
     responsibility under this subsection.
       ``(B) Nondelegability of determination regarding prohibited 
     personnel action.--If the head of an agency is responsible 
     for determining whether a supervisor has committed a 
     prohibited personnel action for purposes of paragraph (1), 
     the head of the agency may not delegate that 
     responsibility.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for subchapter II of chapter 75 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``7515. Discipline of supervisors based on retaliation against 
              whistleblowers.''.

     SEC. 105. SUICIDE BY EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Referral.--The head of an agency shall refer to the 
     Special Counsel, along with any information known to the 
     agency regarding the circumstances described in paragraphs 
     (2) and (3), any instance in which the head of the agency has 
     information indicating--
       (1) an employee of the agency committed suicide;
       (2) prior to the death of the employee, the employee made 
     any disclosure of information which reasonably evidences--
       (A) any violation of any law, rule, or regulation; or
       (B) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse 
     of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public 
     health or safety; and
       (3) after a disclosure described in paragraph (2), a 
     personnel action was taken against the employee.
       (b) Office of Special Counsel Review.--For any referral to 
     the Special Counsel under subsection (a), the Special Counsel 
     shall--

[[Page H7999]]

       (1) examine whether any personnel action was taken because 
     of any disclosure of information described in subsection 
     (a)(2); and
       (2) take any action the Special Counsel determines 
     appropriate under subchapter II of chapter 12 of title 5, 
     United States Code.

     SEC. 106. TRAINING FOR SUPERVISORS.

       In consultation with the Special Counsel and the Inspector 
     General of the agency (or senior ethics official of the 
     agency for an agency without an Inspector General), the head 
     of each agency shall provide training regarding how to 
     respond to complaints alleging a violation of whistleblower 
     protections (as defined in section 2307 of title 5, United 
     States Code, as added by section 107) available to employees 
     of the agency--
       (1) to employees appointed to supervisory positions in the 
     agency who have not previously served as a supervisor; and
       (2) on an annual basis, to all employees of the agency 
     serving in a supervisory position.

     SEC. 107. INFORMATION ON WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS.

       (a) Existing Provision.--
       (1) In general.--Section 2302 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking subsection (c); and
       (B) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as 
     subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 4505a(b)(2) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``section 2302(d)'' and inserting 
     ``section 2302(c)''.
       (B) Section 5755(b)(2) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``section 2302(d)'' and inserting 
     ``section 2302(c)''.
       (C) Section 110(b)(2) of the Whistleblower Protection 
     Enhancement Act of 2012 (5 U.S.C. 2302 note) is amended by 
     striking ``section 2302(f)(1) or (2)'' and inserting 
     ``section 2302(e)(1) or (2)''.
       (D) Section 1217(d)(3) of the Panama Canal Act of 1979 (22 
     U.S.C. 3657(d)(3)) is amended by striking ``section 2302(d)'' 
     and inserting ``section 2302(c)''.
       (E) Section 1233(b) of the Panama Canal Act of 1979 (22 
     U.S.C. 3673(b)) is amended by striking ``section 2302(d)'' 
     and inserting ``section 2302(c)''.
       (b) Provision of Information.--Chapter 23 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 2307. Information on whistleblower protections

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `agency'--
       ``(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), has the 
     meaning given that term in section 2302; and
       ``(B) does not include any entity that is an element of the 
     intelligence community, as defined in section 3(4) of the 
     National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003(4));
       ``(2) the term `new employee' means an individual--
       ``(A) appointed to a position as an employee of an agency 
     on or after the date of enactment of the Dr. Chris 
     Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017; and
       ``(B) who has not previously served as an employee; and
       ``(3) the term `whistleblower protections' means the 
     protections against and remedies for a prohibited personnel 
     practice described in paragraph (8), subparagraph (A)(i), 
     (B), (C), or (D) of paragraph (9), or paragraph (14) of 
     section 2302(b).
       ``(b) Responsibilities of Head of Agency.--The head of each 
     agency shall be responsible for the prevention of prohibited 
     personnel practices, for the compliance with and enforcement 
     of applicable civil service laws, rules, and regulations, and 
     other aspects of personnel management, and for ensuring (in 
     consultation with the Special Counsel and the Inspector 
     General of the agency) that employees of the agency are 
     informed of the rights and remedies available to them under 
     this chapter and chapter 12, including--
       ``(1) information regarding whistleblower protections 
     available to new employees during the probationary period;
       ``(2) the role of the Office of Special Counsel and the 
     Merit Systems Protection Board with regard to whistleblower 
     protections; and
       ``(3) how to make a lawful disclosure of information that 
     is specifically required by law or Executive order to be kept 
     classified in the interest of national defense or the conduct 
     of foreign affairs to the Special Counsel, the Inspector 
     General of an agency, Congress, or other agency employee 
     designated to receive such disclosures.
       ``(c) Timing.--The head of each agency shall ensure that 
     the information required to be provided under subsection (b) 
     is provided to each new employee of the agency not later than 
     6 months after the date the new employee begins performing 
     service as an employee.
       ``(d) Information Online.--The head of each agency shall 
     make available information regarding whistleblower 
     protections applicable to employees of the agency on the 
     public website of the agency, and on any online portal that 
     is made available only to employees of the agency if one 
     exists.
       ``(e) Delegees.--Any employee to whom the head of an agency 
     delegates authority for personnel management, or for any 
     aspect thereof, shall, within the limits of the scope of the 
     delegation, be responsible for the activities described in 
     subsection (b).''.
       (c) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 23 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``2307. Information on whistleblower protections.''.

           TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS EMPLOYEES

     SEC. 201. PREVENTION OF UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO MEDICAL 
                   RECORDS OF EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 
                   VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) Development of Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     shall--
       (A) develop a plan to prevent access to the medical records 
     of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs by 
     employees of the Department who are not authorized to access 
     such records;
       (B) submit to the appropriate committees of Congress the 
     plan developed under subparagraph (A); and
       (C) upon request, provide a briefing to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress with respect to the plan developed 
     under subparagraph (A).
       (2) Elements.--The plan required under paragraph (1) shall 
     include the following:
       (A) A detailed assessment of strategic goals of the 
     Department for the prevention of unauthorized access to the 
     medical records of employees of the Department.
       (B) A list of circumstances in which an employee of the 
     Department who is not a health care provider or an assistant 
     to a health care provider would be authorized to access the 
     medical records of another employee of the Department.
       (C) Steps that the Secretary will take to acquire new or 
     implement existing technology to prevent an employee of the 
     Department from accessing the medical records of another 
     employee of the Department without a specific need to access 
     such records.
       (D) Steps the Secretary will take, including plans to issue 
     new regulations, as necessary, to ensure that an employee of 
     the Department may not access the medical records of another 
     employee of the Department for the purpose of retrieving 
     demographic information if that demographic information is 
     available to the employee in another location or through 
     another format.
       (E) A proposed timetable for the implementation of such 
     plan.
       (F) An estimate of the costs associated with implementing 
     such plan.
       (b) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate; 
     and
       (2) the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and 
     the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives.

     SEC. 202. OUTREACH ON AVAILABILITY OF MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 
                   AVAILABLE TO EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 
                   VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall conduct a program 
     of outreach to employees of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs to inform those employees of any mental health 
     services, including telemedicine options, that are available 
     to them.

     SEC. 203. PROTOCOLS TO ADDRESS THREATS AGAINST EMPLOYEES OF 
                   THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall ensure protocols 
     are in effect to address threats from individuals receiving 
     health care from the Department of Veterans Affairs directed 
     towards employees of the Department who are providing such 
     health care.

     SEC. 204. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES STUDY ON 
                   ACCOUNTABILITY OF CHIEFS OF POLICE OF 
                   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTERS.

       The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct 
     a study to assess the reporting, staffing, accountability, 
     and chain of command structure of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs police officers at medical centers of the Department.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Blum) and the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BLUM. 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 S. 585, currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in support of S. 585, the Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick 
Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017.
  This bill addresses problems that were exposed in the tragic case of 
whistleblower retaliation at the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick was a doctor employed on a probationary basis 
by

[[Page H8000]]

Veterans Affairs, who committed suicide hours after he was fired for 
questioning overmedication of the veterans he cared for.
  This bill would, for the first time, create minimum disciplinary 
standards to require that managers who retaliate against whistleblowers 
are punished. First offenders would receive at least 3 days of 
suspension, and repeat offenders would face mandatory termination.
  The Kirkpatrick Act also adds whistleblower protections to Federal 
employees hired on a probationary basis, like Dr. Kirkpatrick. Agencies 
will be required to grant priority to requests for transfer from 
probationary period whistleblowers.
  The bill would create a number of other whistleblower protections, 
many of which are overdue. For example, accessing the medical file of a 
whistleblower for the purpose of retaliation would be declared a 
prohibited personnel action. The Department of Veterans Affairs would 
also be required to devise a plan to prevent that sort of unauthorized 
medical file access.
  The bill also requires apparent suicides by whistleblowers to be 
referred to the Office of Special Counsel for further investigation. 
Agencies would be required to initiate training programs for 
supervisors and information disclosures for employees regarding 
whistleblower protection.
  The Senate passed this bill by voice vote earlier this year, and 
passage through the House would send the bill to the President's desk 
for signature and enactment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill to honor the memory of Dr. 
Chris Kirkpatrick and to protect future whistleblowers.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the Oversight and Government 
Reform Committee, the committee with oversight jurisdiction over 
Federal workers and agencies, I am one of the staunchest supporters of 
whistleblower protections in the Congress. I strongly support enhancing 
protections for the brave men and women who put their careers on the 
line to speak out against waste, fraud, and abuse.
  I fully support the intent of S. 585 to protect whistleblowers who 
face investigations in retaliation for their disclosures. But I am 
disappointed that the Republican leadership chose not to consider this 
measure under regular order.
  House Republicans rushed this legislation directly to the floor, 
bypassing any consideration by the Oversight Committee or the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, which have jurisdiction over the bill. It is 
especially disappointing that my committee was not given the 
opportunity to address constitutional and privacy concerns raised by 
the Trump administration's Office of Personnel Management about the 
bill. That is what I said: the Trump administration's concerns about 
it.
  It is even more disheartening that the Rules Committee issued a 
closed rule for this bill. They blocked all three germane amendments 
that I submitted, including an amendment to fix the problems identified 
by the OPM.
  The measure before us today would change the procedures for 
disciplining Federal supervisors who retaliate against employees who 
blow the whistle. It would require agency heads to impose suspensions 
of at least 3 days for a first offense, and termination for a second 
offense whenever an agency head, administrative law judge, the Merit 
Systems Protection Board, a Federal judge, or an inspector general 
finds that a supervisor retaliated against an employee who blew the 
whistle.
  It also would reduce the length of the notice requirement for 
proposed disciplinary action from 30 days to 14 days. It would 
eliminate the option to hold a hearing if a supervisor contests a 
proposed disciplinary action. It would change the current burden of 
proof for demonstrating retaliation from a preponderance of the 
evidence to require agency heads to impose disciplinary action in any 
case in which a supervisor does not furnish evidence or if the head of 
the agency determines that such evidence is not sufficient to reverse 
the proposed action.
  The bill also would require an agency head, when an employee may have 
committed suicide, to refer any information to the Office of Special 
Counsel indicating that the employee had blown the whistle and that the 
agency took personnel action against the employee.
  The OPM has questioned whether some of the provisions in the bill 
would withstand constitutional scrutiny if challenged in court, and I 
agree with the OPM on that issue.
  For example, the OPM explained that the bill's requirement to propose 
minimum penalties of 3 days' suspension for the first offense and 
termination for second offenses could violate due process protections. 
These protections require agencies to notify employees of factors they 
will consider regarding proposed penalties for findings of wrongdoing 
and to provide employees with meaningful opportunities to respond. The 
United States Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Courts have ruled that 
Federal employees are entitled to these protections. After all, they 
are Americans.

  But according to the OPM, the bill would eliminate agency 
consideration of many of the 12 factors that were set force by the 
Merit Systems Protection Board in Douglas v. Veterans Administration in 
1981. The Board uses these so-called Douglas factors to assess the 
reasonableness of penalties, and agency officials who propose or decide 
adverse actions against employees must concurrently consider these 
factors.
  Concerns have also been raised that by reducing the current 
requirement for 30 days' notice of adverse action to 14 days, lowering 
the existing burden of proof, and eliminating the option for hearings, 
the bill could be challenged on the basis that it does not give 
supervisors sufficiently meaningful opportunities to respond to 
accusations of retaliation.
  In addition, although the intent of the bill is to enhance 
protections for whistleblowers, there is some concern that it would be 
misused to harm whistleblowers. For example, an agency head could 
utilize the bill's abbreviated disciplinary processes in bad faith to 
retaliate against supervisors who blow the whistle on high-level waste, 
fraud, or abuse.
  Lastly, the provision requiring agency heads to refer information to 
the Office of Special Counsel regarding employees who may have 
committed suicide raises important privacy questions. The bill does not 
include any provision requiring agencies to obtain permission from 
family members before sharing information about an employee's death. It 
is unfortunate that the House has failed to take the opportunity to fix 
these flaws in this measure.
  The second amendment that I presented would have protected the 
privacy interests of employees who commit suicide by requiring written 
permission from their next of kin before agency heads disclose the 
details about the death.
  And another amendment that I submitted would have made corrections in 
the underlying bill to ensure that managers who violate whistleblower 
rights will be held accountable, while safeguarding due process rights.
  Finally, the third amendment was the text of my bipartisan bill, H.R. 
702, the Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination Act of 2017, which passed 
the House by a voice vote under suspension of the rules earlier in this 
Congress, and also passed the House by a vote of 403-0 in the last 
Congress.
  This amendment would have expanded the protections for employees who 
suffer retaliation and discrimination. It also would have prohibited 
the use of nondisclosure agreements to prevent employees from 
disclosing waste, fraud, or abuse to Congress, to the Office of Special 
Counsel, and inspector generals.
  I expect the bill, as it now stands, to engender substantial 
litigation that may have to be addressed by the courts. It would, 
indeed, be unfortunate if that litigation resulted in overturning 
disciplinary action against an employee who retaliated against a 
whistleblower, when we could have acted today to address the 
constitutional concerns.
  As I said before the Rules Committee, sometimes I think we can get so 
caught up in our partisan battles, that even when we come with good 
suggestions as to how to make a piece of legislation better and more 
effective and certainly come within the bounds

[[Page H8001]]

of the Constitution, we are blinded by what we see; and that is this 
battle between Republicans and Democrats, Mr. Speaker, and we don't 
come up, sometimes with the very best product.
  But even with all that, because I am so concerned about 
whistleblowers, I plan to vote for the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Dr. Chris 
Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act, which will enhance 
whistleblower protections for employees at the VA and lead to better 
care for our Nation's veterans.
  This bill is named in honor of Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick, a Wisconsinite, 
who tragically took his own life after being fired from the Tomah VA 
Medical Center in my congressional district in Tomah, Wisconsin.
  Dr. Kirkpatrick was a clinical psychologist who specialized in 
treating some of the toughest and most pressing issues our veterans 
face today: PTSD, substance abuse, and chronic pain.
  During his time at Tomah, Dr. Kirkpatrick noticed a disturbing trend 
of overprescribing of opioids to patients.

                              {time}  1330

  Dr. Kirkpatrick had the courage to blow the whistle to his superiors 
about what he rightly saw as dangerous pain management practices at the 
time. Sadly, the overprescribing issues that Dr. Kirkpatrick tried to 
warn about continued to occur at Tomah VA.
  In 2015, a Wisconsin veteran named Jason Simcakoski tragically lost 
his life at the facility due to the dangerous pain management practices 
at the Tomah VA. Last year, I worked with the Simcakoski family to pass 
the bipartisan Jason Simcakoski PROMISE Act to improve pain management 
practices at the VA so that no other veterans and their families have 
to go through what the Simcakoski family had to.
  Although Dr. Kirkpatrick is no longer with us today, his dedication 
to serving veterans and his courage to stand up for what was right is 
why we are here today. This act will ensure that no one is retaliated 
against for coming forward with concerns about waste, fraud, abuse, and 
malpractice at the VA. The bill offers a number of new protections for 
whistleblowers and will help ensure that supervisors found guilty of 
retaliation are held responsible for their actions.
  Dr. Kirkpatrick was dedicated to improving lives and serving our 
Nation's veterans. The bill before us today will honor the memory of 
Dr. Kirkpatrick by helping to make sure no one has to go through what 
he did.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. BLUM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee and one who has been a staunch supporter of 
whistleblowers.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I would agree with many of the gentleman's 
concerns and comments regarding the lack of a real legislative process 
here. The bill could be better. But nonetheless, like the ranking 
member, I will be supporting the legislation despite those concerns 
because it is absolutely urgent.
  I have a totally dysfunctional management at the VA hospital in 
Roseburg, Oregon. A number of years ago, a whistleblower came to me and 
said that substandard care was being provided. We asked the Office of 
Inspector General to look into it. They whitewashed it, and then it 
came out in the Senate testimony that the Office of Special Counsel had 
found that this doctor had been penalized as a whistleblower because he 
was pointing to substandard care.
  I asked for another investigation and ultimately found, yes, indeed, 
substandard care was being provided by the head surgeon. He was 
suspended from his duties but is still the head surgeon. Now he has run 
another very accomplished doctor, under very dubious circumstances, out 
of my Eugene clinic. This is a surgeon who served 29 years, honorably, 
in the military, 10 years at my regional hospital with rave reviews, 
and, after 30 days at my new VA clinic in Eugene, was dismissed in the 
most unusual way with no allegations put forward.
  Mr. Speaker, again, it seems that we are having issues here when the 
quality is substandard that this one person is able to basically just 
get rid of the folks who are raising concerns about the care of 
veterans. Again, this shouldn't happen.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the record two letters regarding the 
dismissed doctor.
                                                 October 17, 2017.
       Dear Mr. DeFazio: I am a contracted physician in the 
     emergency department at the Roseburg VA. I have been working 
     at this facility since 2010. During that time I have truly 
     enjoyed providing care for the veterans. However, I have 
     significant concerns regarding the administration and 
     inefficiencies in healthcare, in the VA system. 
     Unfortunately, it seems that advancement of careers and the 
     fluffing of numbers supersede patient care.
       Despite the build up of these concerns over the years, I 
     have recently became aware of an action that compels me to go 
     beyond the normal chain of command. One of the surgeons 
     working at the Eugene campus--still under the Roseburg 
     administration--was fired recently under very concerning 
     circumstances.
       Dr. Scott Russi was working at the Eugene VA for less than 
     1 month when he was pushed out and fired. I know Dr. Russi 
     from the private sector. In addition to working at the 
     Roseburg VA, I have worked for the last ten years at Sacred 
     Heart RiverBend--a trauma, stroke, and cardiac center--and 
     one of the largest hospitals in the state. I worked alongside 
     Dr. Russi for many years at RiverBend and I found him to be 
     not only extremely competent and hardworking, but always very 
     professional. I was sad to see him leave RiverBend, but I was 
     encouraged that he would be working in the VA system as I 
     felt he would significantly improve the quality of care for 
     the veterans.
       I find it very disheartening that a group of administrative 
     physicians, who rarely practice medicine, are able to strike 
     down such a promising figure simply because they seem to have 
     felt threatened by him. I know there are many people who are 
     upset by this firing and who have concerns about this system 
     in general. I have tried many times to discuss my concerns 
     with people in the administration and have been met with, at 
     best, excuses and, at worst, threats. It is clear to me as 
     somewhat of an outsider and observer (as I am not actually a 
     VA employee) that physicians who are dedicated to patient 
     care and most skilled are threatening to the administration. 
     These physicians are often ostracized and pushed out--and 
     when they can't be pushed out, false rumors are spread about 
     them. I have considered stepping away from the VA system due 
     to these continuing frustrations. It is disheartening to see 
     these veterans treated with such carelessness. However, I 
     feel that someone has to stay and actually care for them, 
     but, if I stay, I also want to try to make the system a 
     better place for them. For many, this is their only health 
     care.
       I wish this was as exaggerated as it may sound, but 
     unfortunately this is only a small piece of a huge problem. 
     If you are interested in more details, I am more than happy 
     to discuss this further. In general, I keep my head down and 
     do what I think is best, but this presents itself as a moment 
     when speaking out is necessary and right.
           Thank you,
     Charlotte Ransom, MD.
                                  ____

       Congressman DeFazio: I am writing to ask for your help. I 
     am a surgeon and a veteran having attended the Usafa and 
     graduating in 1984, completing medical school on Hpsp 
     scholarship and spending the next 29 years on active duty. I 
     deployed four times as a combat surgeon and once as a 
     hospital commander, my last deployment in 2012 was as the 
     Dccs of Craig Joint Theater Hospital, Bagram Ab, Afghanistan. 
     I retired in October of 2013 and settled in Oregon as a 
     trauma surgeon eventually becoming the Trauma Medical 
     Director at Riverbend. I was the on-call surgeon the tragic 
     day Ucc suffered the active shooter event. I recently left my 
     civilian practice to serve our Veterans, for reasons I think 
     you would understand; I have seen the care my comrades have 
     been given and found it wanting, and serving my Vets is 
     therapeutic for my Ptsd and the sorrow I carry for not being 
     able to save more soldiers. I am the new surgeon at the Va 
     Eugene Hcc and have been working there part-time since 
     January of this year and full time since 23 July. Today I was 
     handed a summary suspension of clinical privileges as a 
     surgeon by the parent Va, Roseburg and Dr. Dinesh Ranjan the 
     chief of surgery. I have been denied the opportunity to 
     defend my reputation, denied the opportunity to stand before 
     my peers, and denied any opportunity to see the allegations. 
     And tonight, I have spoken with two Va physicians (Dr. Lisa 
     Brandenburger and Dr. Philo Calhoun) whose lives were 
     dedicated to serving Veterans but were irreparably damaged by 
     Dr. Ranjan. I am now being targeted by Dr. Ranjan because he 
     recruited me with the promise of a salary of $385,000, I 
     signed a contract for that

[[Page H8002]]

     amount but I am being paid $280,000. Because I expressed to 
     the Eugene Hcc administrator I felt I was misled about the 
     salary, Dr. Ranjan has gone after my clinical privileges, had 
     them summarily dismissed and placed me at risk of being 
     reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank (Npdb). I 
     have been suspended from patient contact for 30 days for an 
     investigation. If the investigation finds me deficient, I 
     will be reported to the Npdb. If the investigation extends 
     beyond 30 days, I will be reported to the Npdb. If I am fired 
     or quit my job, I will be reported to the Npdb. If I am 
     reported to the Npdb I will never work again as a surgeon.
       I know it all sounds unbelievable, I think it is 
     unbelievable as I try and wrap my head around the events of 
     these last few days. I ask you not to send a congressional 
     inquiry to Mr. Paxton, as that would make my life worse. What 
     I thought would be my dream job, now has become a nightmare.
           Respectfully,
                                                      Scott Russi.

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, since this has come out, I have had dozens 
of calls from nurses and doctors and other workers in the VA system in 
my region--in Eugene, Springfield, and southern Oregon, down to 
Roseburg, at those two facilities--because of this mismanagement. They 
say that the care is not up to standards, just like this particular 
physician was not providing modern care when he did colonoscopies.
  We need--vitally need--this legislation and the strongest protection 
for whistleblowers. This isn't about protecting bad managers. It is 
about promoting qualified and keeping qualified employees, which we are 
having a hard time doing in my area. It is about providing the best 
care to our veterans, and that isn't going to happen if people can be 
intimidated or just shown the door when they raise concerns.
  Mr. BLUM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster).
  Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member 
Cummings for yielding me time to speak about this important legislation 
to protect whistleblowers.
  Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns that were brought up yesterday in 
the Rules Committee and today on the floor about the procedure for 
bringing this bill to the floor without full House committee process. 
However, I will support the bill because it is so important.
  The Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act will provide 
protection for employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs who blow 
the whistle on wrongdoing in the agency.
  As the ranking member of the House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations, I know full well that whistleblowers are 
vital to the VA to protect the health and well-being of the men and 
women who have so bravely served our country. Although we have numerous 
protections currently in place for whistleblowers, those who are 
committed to silencing them still manage to find ways to retaliate, 
which we saw with tragic consequences at the Phoenix VA Health Care 
System and in Dr. Kirkpatrick's case.
  In addition to serving on the House Veterans Affairs' Committee, my 
role as the founder and co-chair of the Bipartisan Heroin Task Force 
makes VA's retaliation against another VA doctor, Dr. Kirkpatrick, an 
especially troublesome tragedy. When he tried to raise the alarm over 
concerns that another VA doctor was overprescribing opioids that may 
have led to patient deaths, he was aware that doing so could be harmful 
to his own position at the Tomah VA Medical Center.
  Dr. Kirkpatrick's action was laudable. Veterans have been acutely 
impacted by the opioid epidemic, and his efforts to reduce prescription 
rates for veterans is not only a good example for VA physicians, but 
for all physicians in the U.S. today.
  Title II of this bill puts in place a number of requirements for the 
VA to protect VA employees from several retaliatory measures. It 
requires the Secretary to put in place a plan to prevent unauthorized 
access to medical records of VA employees, along with outreach to 
ensure that VA employees are aware of mental health services available 
to them.
  These and other improvements in title II will not only help prevent 
the type of retaliation that Dr. Kirkpatrick suffered, they will 
improve care for veterans to also help make the VA a better place to 
work.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this bill, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. BLUM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As I close, I take the opportunity to reiterate that I strongly 
support the objectives of S. 585. If there is anything that we agree on 
in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, it is that we must 
protect whistleblowers.
  Many of the investigations that we have conducted have been as a 
result of somebody who saw something and said something. Like Dr. 
Kirkpatrick, I am sure, in most of those instances, it was very 
difficult for them because they, on the one hand, wanted to improve a 
situation or address a problem, but at the same time, they knew that it 
was possible that they, themselves, might be harmed and their families 
might be harmed. So they make a very, very difficult choice, a very 
difficult choice.
  I am horrified that Dr. Kirkpatrick was so agonized by the treatment 
he endured at the Veterans Administration that he saw no options for 
himself. In other words, Mr. Speaker, he saw no way out. I worry that 
there are civil servants today who are enduring that same agony.
  But we say to them that we will protect you with all we have got, and 
that is why I appreciate Senator Johnson's work on S. 585, and I share 
his commitment to protecting whistleblowers. For that reason, as I said 
earlier, I will vote in favor of this legislation.
  That said, I wish that the Republican leadership had taken the 
opportunities that my amendments provided to improve this bill. These 
issues of equal protection are nothing to play with because we begin to 
chip away and chip away and chip away at employees' rights, and the 
next you know, those rights begin to disappear. Those are the kind of 
rights that are a part and the fabric of this thing we call a 
democracy. I think we have to be very, very, very careful. It is going 
to be interesting to see what the courts have to say about this 
legislation.
  My amendments would have addressed the constitutional concerns raised 
by OPM--and I emphasize OPM. This was not the Obama OPM. This was the 
Trump OPM.
  My amendments would also have protected the privacy of employees who 
take their own lives.
  My amendments would have added to the underlying bill additional 
protections for employees who suffer retaliation or discrimination, 
protections that the House has already approved.
  I believe this is a missed opportunity and it is sad. I truly hope 
that future litigation does not undo the advances that this bill seeks 
to make in the protections provided for the courageous men and women 
willing to blow the whistle on wrongdoing. In this day and age, we need 
the whistleblower more now than we have ever needed them.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to support this bill to protect some 
of the boldest, most courageous people in our Nation, the 
whistleblowers.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUM. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge adoption of the bill, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 585 
the Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017. As 
Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, protecting 
whistleblowers at VA is of paramount concern to ensure that we provide 
high quality healthcare and benefits to our nation's veterans.
  This bill authored by Senator Johnson of Wisconsin was named in honor 
of Dr. Christopher Kirkpatrick, a former VA doctor who served our 
veterans at the Tomah, WI medical center. Many of us know that the 
Tomah VA medical center has been a facility plagued with the 
overprescribing of opioids to our veterans. Dr. Kirkpatrick was a brave 
patriot who blew the whistle on these over prescriptions and the harm 
that was being done to veterans, however, instead of commending him for 
coming forward, VA fired him on trumped up charges, which ultimately 
led to him taking his own life.
  In my opinion, the corrosive culture within this facility and VA's 
actions toward Dr. Kirkpatrick left a chilling effect not only in 
Tomah, but across the Department. I believe that these actions made 
whistleblowers feel questioned and worried that they would be punished 
instead of being lauded and encouraged to come forward.

[[Page H8003]]

  It is because of brave whistleblowers like Dr. Kirkpatrick that my 
Committee has been able to expose issues and scandals across the VA. It 
is because of whistleblowers that we were able to uncover the 
manipulation of wait times at the Phoenix Medical Center; the 
falsifying of records in the Philadelphia Regional Office; the fact 
that a VA employee participated in an armed robbery in Puerto Rico and 
stayed on the job following their arrest; and many more egregious 
behaviors at the Department that put veterans in harm's way.
  I have confidence that Secretary Shulkin is committed to protecting 
whistleblowers, so that we never again lose another talented doctor, 
like Dr. Kirkpatrick. The best way to help him in this mission is to 
send a clear message to all VA employees, at every level in the 
Department, and within every level of management, that there are stiff 
penalties for those who retaliate against the men and women who are 
brave enough to come forward and protect veterans.
  S. 585 builds off of our work this Congress that started with the 
passage of the bill I championed, the VA Accountability and 
Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017, which provides the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs the tools he needs to hold poor employees accountable. 
I am pleased that the bill before us today would make needed changes to 
our outdated civil service laws for all Federal Government employees, 
which have become so archaic and complex that they tend to put the 
rights of retaliators above the rights of whistleblowers.
  The bill before us would also provide needed reforms to information 
regarding VA employees who die by suicide, additional penalties for 
accessing a veteran's medical record, and other needed provisions to 
ensure that we put the needs of whistleblowers and veterans first.
  I appreciate Senator Johnson and Representative Duffy for their work 
on this important bill and I encourage all of my colleagues to support 
its passage.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, today, Congress will have an opportunity to 
vote on legislation that will bolster protections for whistleblowing 
patriots, while vastly improving care for veterans at the VA.
  The Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act is the product 
of hundreds of hours of Congressional hearings, meetings with 
stakeholders, and hard work by dozens of lawmakers here in Washington, 
to make sure that the tragic abuse that Dr. Kirkpatrick faced will 
never happen again.
  As some of you may know, Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick was a clinical 
psychologist at the VA in Tomah, WI. He was a veteran, a graduate of 
Northwestern University, and a caring individual who dedicated his 
career to providing innovative treatments for veterans suffering from 
PTSD. Most notably, he created a yoga program to help vets at the VA in 
Chicago. He was known to be very well-liked by the patients he served.
  In 2009, Dr. Kirkpatrick expressed concerns that his patients were 
being heavily overmedicated. It became so bad, he said, that he was 
unable to properly do his job. He wanted to do what was right for 
veterans, and as a veteran himself, he couldn't stand to see how 
careless some of the VA staff were being with high levels of dangerous 
medications.
  Unfortunately, instead of looking into Dr. Kirkpatrick's claims, the 
facility's chief of staff told him to mind his own business, and to 
instead focus on his own work. Shortly thereafter, Dr. Kirkpatrick was 
called to a disciplinary meeting and given a written reprimand.
  This type of retaliation went on for months.
  Then, in July, Dr. Kirkpatrick complained again that a dangerous 
veteran had not been properly discharged, despite recommendations from 
a treatment team. A week after making the complaint, Dr. Kirkpatrick 
was fired from the VA.
  He was devastated. He begged for an opportunity to stay, and 
expressed concerns that he had been given too many complex cases, and 
that the emotional toll was too high. Again, his concerns were ignored.
  That night, Dr. Kirkpatrick wrote a note to his girlfriend in 
Chicago, another to the kennel he wanted to take care of his dog, and 
one final note for the mailman. It read: ``Please call 911--tell them 
to go to red barn building.''
  He had taken his own life. He was 38 years old.
  Dr. Kirkpatrick's death was the product of a broken system--a system 
that encourages retaliation against whistleblowers, while ignoring the 
underlying causes of their concerns.
  If Dr. Kirkpatrick's death wasn't tragic enough, a subsequent 
investigation at the VA found that a patient had died from ``mixed drug 
toxicity'', and that Dr. Kirkpatrick's concerns were completely 
warranted.
  Not only did whistleblower retaliation cost Dr. Kirkpatrick his life, 
it cost the life of a patient as well.
  That's why I urge you all to vote yes on the Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick 
Whistleblower Protection Act.
  A yes vote means that VA personnel will no longer be able to access a 
whistleblower's medical records as means of discrediting them, which a 
separate investigation found happens far too often.
  A yes vote means that federal agencies have to notify the Office of 
Special Counsel when a suicide takes place.
  A yes means clear disciplinary actions for supervisors who retaliate 
against whistleblowers, training for supervisors on how to properly 
respond, and a requirement that employees are made aware of the mental 
health services at their disposal.
  A yes vote also means keeping upholding normal burdens of proof to 
strengthen protections for employees. This legislation calls for the 
Inspector General, Office of Special Counsel, or a Merit Systems 
Protection Board Administrative Judge to ``determine'' that a 
supervisor has committed a prohibited personnel action, meaning through 
the normal preponderance of the evidence for any other disciplinary 
action under Chapter 75 of title 5. This does not mean some arbitrary 
process for some bureaucrat to create later on.
  I want to be clear: this legislation strengthens protections for 
patriots--for those who are trying to do the right thing. For those who 
care about veterans and their safety. And for folks like Dr. 
Kirkpatrick, so that no one ever has to go through what he went 
through.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 562, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third 
time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. O'HALLERAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. O'HALLERAN. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. O'Halleran moves to recommit the bill S. 585 to the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform with 
     instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith 
     with the following amendment:
       At the end of title I the bill, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. __. DISCLOSURE OF VIOLATIONS RELATING TO AIR 
                   TRANSPORTATION.

       This Act, and any amendments made by this Act, shall apply 
     to any employee who makes a protected disclosure of 
     information relating to a violation by the head of an agency, 
     or other political appointee, of any law, rule, or regulation 
     concerning travel, including the improper use of air 
     transportation.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. O'HALLERAN. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, 
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, 
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, increasing accountability and transparency across our 
government is a shared principle we can all agree on among this body. 
Whether at the VA or other Federal agencies, the American people 
deserve to know that Federal officials from the top down are being held 
to the standards we expect of them.
  We owe it to our veterans, to our seniors, and to the hardworking 
American taxpayers to ensure that their tax dollars are utilized 
appropriately and efficiently, as intended. Waste, fraud, and abuse, 
have no place at our agencies, and those who help uncover it deserve 
our admiration and our protection.
  I am proud that we are coming together to increase protections for 
whistleblowers of Federal agencies, a long overdue effort. But, Mr. 
Speaker, in light of recent reports and events that have revealed a 
disturbing pattern of improper use of tax dollars on air travel by 
senior Federal officials, I believe we must go further.
  The reports of Cabinet officials abusing the rules for air travel 
that applied to them are not isolated. Not one, not two, not three, but 
at least four Cabinet officials are facing scrutiny for irregular and 
irresponsible use of agency resources for official and nonofficial air 
travel. In light of Secretary Price's recent resignation, it is clear 
that Congress must conduct greater oversight.

                              {time}  1345

  That is why I am offering this final amendment on the underlying 
bill.

[[Page H8004]]

  My amendment simply extends whistleblower protections that are 
created under the bill to Federal employees who disclose information 
about travel, including improper use of aircraft.
  Not only would this make clear to agencies that any violation of 
laws, rules, or regulations concerning travel or government aircraft is 
unacceptable, it will also ensure those who come forward to expose any 
wrongdoing will have appropriate protection from retaliation.
  Regardless of party, those who serve the American public must be held 
to the highest ethical standards. Our ability to hold government 
officials accountable to taxpayers is a hallmark of our democracy, and 
we must work to uphold that principle. The resources invested to 
agencies to fulfill their missions of serving Americans should not be 
abused or frivolously flaunted for personal gain or convenience.
  This is not about Republicans or Democrats. We must come together to 
stand up for accountability and transparency. The moment we begin 
treating disregard for the rules by our elected and appointed officials 
as partisan politics, we risk ceding the very values that make our 
democracy great and unique in the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting my 
commonsense amendment on behalf of American taxpayers, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUM. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion 
to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose the motion to recommit.
  This bill addresses critical flaws in how the Federal Government 
addresses whistleblower retaliation.
  The consequences for whistleblower retaliation are very real. There 
is a chilling effect of whistleblower reports or unjust termination. In 
some cases, like that of Dr. Kirkpatrick in the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, the consequences are literally life and death.
  We have the opportunity to send this bill to the President for a 
signature today and fix this now. Why wait? And at what cost to Federal 
employees, veterans, and taxpayers?
  I support the gentleman from Maryland's effort to pass this provision 
which I previously cosponsored myself, but let's not let one good bill 
get in the way of another.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit 
and support the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. O'HALLERAN. 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.

                          ____________________