[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 148 (Wednesday, September 14, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H7825-H7833]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2021


                             General Leave

  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and 
extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the bill before 
us today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1339 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2988.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1608


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2988) to amend title 5, United States Code, to modify and enhance 
protections for Federal Government whistleblowers, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Blumenauer in the chair.
  The CHAIR. The House is in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union for the consideration of H.R. 2988, which the Clerk 
will report by title.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform or their respective 
designees.
  The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) and the

[[Page H7826]]

gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 2988, the Whistleblower Protection 
Improvement Act of 2021. In May 2021, I introduced the Whistleblower 
Protection Improvement Act, along with Representative Nancy Mace, 
ranking member of the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Subcommittee.
  Federal whistleblowers serve a critical role by shedding a light on 
government corruption, waste, fraud, and abuse and wrongdoing, often 
through reporting such actions to Congress. Their disclosures protect 
taxpayers' dollars, improve Federal programs, and even save lives. 
Unfortunately, the Oversight Committee has seen too many examples of 
employers retaliating against whistleblowers. In one instance, the TSA, 
the Transportation Security Administration, that provides security at 
airports, moved an airport employee hundreds of miles away to a new 
duty station when they revealed security flaws at the TSA at the 
airports.
  In another troubling example, a White House supervisor moved files 
beyond the reach of a disabled employee after the employee disclosed 
violations of security clearance procedures.
  A GAO report earlier this year also revealed that employees at four 
scientific research agencies did not report instances of political 
interference in scientific decisionmaking out of fear of retaliation 
and uncertainty of how to best voice their concerns.
  As these examples make clear, whistleblowers often make disclosures 
at great personal risk. That is why protections for whistleblowers have 
long received bipartisan support in this Congress. I thank my 
colleagues, including Representative Mace, for continuing that 
tradition today.
  The Whistleblower Protection Improvement Act would enact long-overdue 
reforms to protect whistleblowers from retaliation to the greatest 
extent possible, and to provide meaningful remedies if whistleblowers 
still encounter retaliation.
  The bill would prohibit agencies from launching retaliatory 
investigations against employees who blow the whistle and would limit 
the public disclosure of a whistleblower's identity.
  The bill would also provide Federal whistleblowers with faster legal 
recourse for retaliation claims and would allow them to have their 
claims tried before a jury in a Federal District Court. Access to jury 
trials has long been a priority of whistleblower advocates.
  The last major reform to whistleblower protection was in 2012. I am 
proud to continue this important bipartisan effort to protect 
whistleblowers today.
  The bill we are considering also clarifies that whistleblowers who 
prevail are entitled to recover attorney's fees and to receive the 
necessary relief to make them whole.
  Finally, the bill would make clear that no Federal employee, 
including the President or the Vice President of the U.S., may 
interfere or retaliate against a whistleblower for disclosing 
information to Congress.
  The Whistleblower Protection Improvement Act has received public 
support from more than 100 stakeholder organizations, including the 
Government Accountability Project, the National Taxpayers Union, the 
Project on Government Oversight, the Taxpayer Protection Alliance, and 
Whistleblowers of America.
  Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter of support from 100 
different organizations.
                                                    July 14. 2022.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi: During the last month, our nation has 
     been fixated on evidence about threats to our democracy 
     exposed in the January 6 Select Committee hearings. The 
     undersigned organizations commend your leadership creating 
     the January 6 Committee for exposing the truth. The 
     undersigned organizations now seek your leadership protecting 
     those who provide the evidence.
       The Committee on Oversight and Reform has marked up HR 
     6762. the Whistleblower Protection Improvement Act (WPIA). 
     The legislation deserves floor time for a House vote so that 
     we can highlight its passage on July 30. 2022, National 
     Whistleblower Appreciation Day. The House has voted for this 
     reform in the Protect Our Democracy Act. but Senate action 
     requires standalone legislation.
       The WPIA would be the fifth generation of pioneering 
     whistleblower rights first passed in 1978. These rights have 
     been excellent global pacesetters that Congress unanimously 
     has reaffirmed three time since 1978, the last in the 
     Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012. The two 
     Achilles heels, however, have been loopholes and lack of 
     credible due process enforcement.
       Those problems only have become worse since 2012. For 
     example, the administrative Merit Systems Protection Board 
     has a monopoly on enforcement. but its vulnerability to 
     political pressure blocked confirmations and led to an empty 
     Board with a 3,500 case back log. Lacking judicial 
     independence, its Administrative Judges who conduct hearings 
     rule against whistleblowers in over 95% of initial merits 
     decisions.
       The WPIA addresses both the loopholes and due process gaps 
     by providing parity for federal civil service employee 
     whistleblower rights with those enacted by Congress 16 times 
     in each or 17 private sector whistleblower law enacted since 
     2002. To illustrate it would--
       Permit jury trials if there is no timely administrative 
     decision. This would take the politics out of 
     whistleblowerjustice for federal employees the nation's only 
     major labor group denied a day in court to challenge 
     violation of their free speech rights despite making the 
     disclosures most significant for voters.
       Permit lawsuits when retaliatory investigations are opened. 
     Investigations are a kneejerk first reaction to find any dirt 
     on whistleblowers that will distract from government fraud, 
     waste and abuse. As long as a probe is open, it has a broad 
     chilling effect even if later dropped. This key provision 
     would establish parity with all other whistleblower laws, 
     even the Military Whistleblower Protection Act.
       Establish realistic legal burdens to obtain temporary 
     relief. Temporary relief is almost never available under 
     current law and is essential when cases commonly drag out 
     over five years. By that time, even winning may be too late 
     for those who have lost their homes, gone bankrupt frequently 
     lost their families and had their professional deputations 
     irrevocably ruined.
       Close loopholes that erase the law's benefits. Currently, 
     Public Health Service (PHS) whistleblowers are excluded from 
     the Whistleblower Protection Act and limited to military 
     remedies, as are employees of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Agency (NOAA). However, these are the 
     professionals from whom we need the truth about public health 
     threats like the pandemic and environmental threats like 
     climate change. Loopholes in remedies mean that 
     whistleblowers still can ``lose by winning.'' The WPIA fills 
     these and similar gaps.
       This legislation is a political opportunity supported by 
     86% of likely voters in a Marist Poll survey just before the 
     last election, and more than 265 organizations across the 
     issue and political spectrum have already expressed support 
     for its passage. It extends the same rights to federal 
     employees defending the public that Congress repeatedly has 
     provided to corporate employees defending the shareholders. 
     We need your leadership, so that those who defend the public 
     can defend themselves.
           Sincerely,
       20/20 Vision DC, Academics Stang Against Poverty, 
     Accountability Lab, Affiliation of Christian Engineers, 
     African Centre for Media & Information Literacy, Alliance to 
     Counter Crime Online, American Association for Justice, 
     American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Animals 
     Are Sentient Beings Inc, Arab American Institute, Bekker 
     Compliance Consulting Partners, LLC, Blueprint for Free 
     Speech, Broward for Progress, Center for Auto Safety, Center 
     for Progressive Reform, Center for Science in the Public 
     Interest (CSPI), Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in 
     Washington (CREW) Citizens' Environmental Coalition, Clean 
     Elections Texas, Climate Science Legal Defense Fund.
       Columbia Legal Services, Community Science Institute, Inc., 
     Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, Consumer Action, Cook 
     Inletkeeper, Corruption kills, Council for a Livable 
     World, Demand Progress, DemCast USA, Dr. Yolanda Whyte 
     Pediatrics, Equal Justice Society, Federally Employed 
     Women, Fight for the Future, Food & Water Watch, Forest 
     Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, Government 
     Accountability Project, Government Information Watch, 
     Harrington Investments, Inc., Human Environmental and 
     Leadership Prevalent Center (HELP Center), Indivisible 
     Santa Fe.
       Information Trust, International Association of 
     Whistleblowers (IAW), International Fund for Animal Welfare, 
     Iowa Institute for Public Accountability, Jacobs Institute of 
     Women's Health, Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP), 
     League of Conservation Voters, Liberty Shared, Mainers for 
     Accountable Leadership, Mehri & Skalet PLLC, Michiganders for 
     Fair & Transparent Elections, Muslim American Law Enforcement 
     Association, National Air Disaster Foundation, National 
     Coalition Against Censorship, National Employment Law 
     Project, National Organization for Women, National 
     Whistleblower Center, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social 
     Justice, No Violence.org, Open

[[Page H7827]]

     MIC (Open Media and Information Companies Initiative).
       Open The Government, Oregonizers, Pax Christi USA, People's 
     Parity Project, Project Censored and Media Freedom 
     Foundation, Project On Government Oversight (POGO), Protect 
     All Children's Environment, Protect Democracy, Public 
     Citizen, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility 
     (PEER), Public Justice Center, Restore The Fourth, Robert F. 
     Kennedy Human Rights, Rock the Vote, RootsAction.org, Rural 
     Coalition, Secure Elections Network, Shriver Center on 
     Poverty Law, Society of Professional Journalists, Strategies 
     For Justice, BWMP LLC.
       Taxpayers Protection Alliance, The Center for International 
     Policy, The Coalition For Change Inc. (C4C), The Digital 
     Democracy Project, The Ecotopian Society, The Freedom BLOC, 
     The James Madison Project, The Revolving Door Project, The 
     Rutherford Institute, The Signals Network, The Vindman Group, 
     The Workers Circle, Transparency International--U.S. Office, 
     Truckers Justice Center, Tully Center for Free Speech, 
     Syracuse University.
       Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington Coalition for 
     Open Government, Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil 
     Rights and Urban Affairs, Washington Office on Latin America 
     (WOLA), WESPAC Foundation, Inc., Whistleblower Network News, 
     Whistleblowers of America, WhistleblowersUK, Wind of the 
     Spirit Immigrant Resource Center, Women's International 
     League for Peace and Freedom US, Women's Action for New 
     Directions (WAND), Workplace Fairness, X-Lab.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill and to 
support the heroes and heroines who disclose wrongdoing and corruption 
in our government, leading to reforms to make our government stronger 
and better able to serve the American people.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. COMER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I will admit the Whistleblower Protection Improvement Act 
has a great name because Congress cares about protecting 
whistleblowers. As the ranking member of the Oversight Committee, I 
appreciate and value whistleblowers' service and sacrifice to make 
government better.
  In fact, ensuring whistleblowers have protections against abuse or 
retaliation is a bipartisan issue here in Congress. That probably 
explains why there are already so many protections that whistleblowers 
have access to in statutes, regulations, executive orders, and agency 
policies. There is the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Intelligence 
Community Whistleblower Protection Act, the Whistleblower Protection 
Enhancement Act, the very catchy Notification and Federal Employee 
Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act.
  Congress has consistently sought to protect people working in the 
Federal Government who report waste, fraud, and abuse--and for good 
reason. Whistleblowers are often the only means of knowing what is 
happening in an agency, and that is especially important under the 
Biden administration when the Democrats in Congress have refused to 
conduct any meaningful or serious oversight.
  But how many more whistleblower laws do we need with so many already 
on the books?
  Further, Republicans oppose this bill because it is a step too far. A 
simple version of this bill would have just applied the existing 
whistleblower protections to the few corners of the Federal Government 
that aren't already covered by the law. However, H.R. 2988 goes much 
further by making it nearly impossible--and only after a long, 
expensive process--to address performance or employment issues in 
anyone claiming to be a whistleblower, even if the person is not really 
a whistleblower but just bad at his or her job.
  In the real world, if you are undermining your boss, participating in 
misconduct, or just lazy, your employer has options to hold you 
accountable. In the Federal Government, if you claim you are a 
whistleblower, you can be as terrible as you want and almost any 
attempt to remove you from your station is characterized as 
retaliation.
  There is a difference between retaliation and plain repercussions, 
but this bill would make them the same. It would prohibit opening an 
investigation into someone who claims to be a whistleblower, even if 
there is good reason to investigate the employee's conduct.
  Under this bill, it would be nearly impossible to reveal the identity 
of a whistleblower in order to evaluate the validity of his or her 
claims.
  In large part, this bill is just an excuse to further idolize the 
people who pushed the sham impeachment against former President Trump. 
The actions of President Trump were, of course, vindicated by the 
Senate.
  Entrenching Federal Government employees by enacting laws like H.R. 
2988 is, in large part, why President Trump got elected in the first 
place: to drain the swamp. Democrats may be wise to remember this 
concern of the American people and stop working to further entrench the 
executive branch bureaucracy.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), the distinguished chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Government Operations.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, I thank the distinguished chairwoman of our 
committee for yielding time.
  I hardly think President Donald Trump drained the swamp. He filled it 
with alligators.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 2988, the Whistleblower Protection 
Improvement Act. I am committed to protecting, supporting, and 
empowering our 2.1 million civil servants to use their acumen and 
expertise to do what is right for the country.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Operations, I am 
intimately familiar with how whistleblowers and the inspector general 
community protect our government's most valuable asset, the Federal 
workforce.
  The Whistleblower Protection Improvement Act would bolster 
whistleblower protections, ensure due process and equitable relief, and 
expand protections for more Federal employees. The bill clarifies that 
no one may interfere with a Federal employee's right to provide 
information to Congress, including the President of the United States.
  During the Trump Presidency, we saw repeated and consistent efforts 
to silence and retaliate against brave whistleblowers. In May, the 
Department of Defense IG found that Trump loyalists retaliated against 
Colonel Yevgeny Vindman, who bravely reported that President Trump had 
an unlawful phone call with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy.
  Even in the wake of a damning impeachment trial, and in full view of 
the public, Mr. Trump felt emboldened to attack Active Duty 
servicemembers who had the courage and common sense to expose that 
extortion.
  Federal employees must feel safe and supported when rooting out 
waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption. We must celebrate expertise and 
adherence to principles of law, transparency, and deliberation that 
serve as the foundation of our democratic system. We must protect 
public servants and defend the Federal merit system against partisan 
interference.
  I thank the chair of the Oversight Committee, Mrs. Maloney, for 
sponsoring this bill and for always lifting up the subcommittee's work 
on whistleblowers and inspectors general.
  Mr. COMER. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the 
distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I thank my good friend, the chair of our 
committee, for yielding time.
  I come to speak in strong support of the Whistleblower Protection 
Improvement Act, of which I am a cosponsor. I especially appreciate 
this bill since, as a Member of Congress for the District of Columbia, 
many Federal employees are my constituents.
  Importantly, this bill would expand whistleblower protections and 
ensure due process and enable relief for whistleblowers. We should 
appreciate and celebrate our Federal employees, especially our 
whistleblowers, and I am particularly pleased that this bill would 
clarify that Federal employees cannot be retaliated against for sharing 
information with Congress.
  It is important that Congress have full information about the 
operations

[[Page H7828]]

of our government, and this good-governance measure will help with that 
goal.
  I am grateful to Chairwoman Maloney for introducing this important 
bill, and I am pleased to speak in support of it.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, there are no more 
speakers, and I am prepared to close if my colleagues on the Republican 
side are ready to close, as well.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMER. Mr. Chair, whistleblowers in the Federal Government are 
covered by some of the most comprehensive protections for employees in 
the country.
  Whistleblowers serve a valuable role in our government, especially in 
an administration like the Biden administration, which is subject to 
almost no oversight by Congress.
  But giving this bill a great title, Whistleblower Protection 
Improvement Act, does not and should not provide cover for the actual 
requirements and consequences of this bill. Bill titles don't govern 
our government, but the substance within them does.
  The Whistleblower Protection Improvement Act is a step too far and 
would help further entrench Federal Government employees in their jobs.
  Mr. Chair, I oppose H.R. 2988, and I urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, this bill does not prohibit agencies from investigating 
actual misconduct. It merely prohibits launching an investigation as 
retaliation for blowing the whistle.
  When an agency becomes aware of a disclosure of waste, fraud, and 
abuse, the concern of the agency should be addressing those issues 
rather than retaliating against the employee who discloses the 
problems.
  This change fills a critical role created by the 2020 appeals court 
decision that held that current whistleblower laws only prohibit a 
retaliatory investigation if the investigation ultimately resulted in a 
significant change in the employee's working conditions. This decision 
ignored the effect that a retaliatory investigation has on a 
whistleblower when an investigation is going on. So, I disagree with 
the gentleman's statement, and I am now prepared to close.
  Mr. Chair, I want to stress the urgency and importance of this 
legislation and talk about how important it is to protect our 
whistleblowers.
  They play a critical role in exposing wrongdoing within the 
government, sometimes at great personal risk. They need to be able to 
alert agency leaders and Congress without fear of retaliation.
  Passing H.R. 2988 would help give whistleblowers the protection they 
deserve. The key reforms in the bill would prohibit agencies from 
launching retaliatory investigations and extend whistleblowers the 
right to a jury trial, which they have long sought, and permit 
whistleblowers to receive attorney fees if they win their lawsuits.
  This bill establishes new protections for whistleblowers who have a 
crucial role in shedding light on government corruption and wrongdoing.
  This bill is also strongly supported by well over 100 stakeholder 
organizations. Just today, the National Taxpayers Union announced its 
inclusion of this bill as one of its ``No Brainers'' list for bills 
that Congress should pass. Only a few bills receive this kind of 
recognition. This is landmark legislation, both for freedom of speech 
and for government accountability.
  I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have cosponsored 
this important legislation and spoken in support of it. Mr. Chair, I 
strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Oversight and Reform printed in the bill, modified by the 
amendment printed in part B of House Report 117-464, shall be 
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as an 
original bill for purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule 
and shall be considered as read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 2988

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Whistleblower Protection 
     Improvement Act of 2021''.

     SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS.

       (a) Investigations as Personnel Actions.--
       (1) In general.--Section 2302(a)(2)(A) of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) in clause (xi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) by redesignating clause (xii) as clause (xiii); and
       (C) by inserting after the clause (xi) the following:
       ``(xii) for purposes of subsection (b)(8)--
       ``(I) the commencement, expansion, or extension of an 
     investigation, but not including any investigation that is 
     ministerial or nondiscretionary (including a ministerial or 
     nondiscretionary investigation described in section 1213) or 
     any investigation that is conducted by an Inspector General 
     of an entity of the Government of an employee not employed by 
     the office of that Inspector General; and
       ``(II) a referral to an Inspector General of an entity of 
     the Government, except for a referral that is ministerial or 
     nondiscretionary; and''.
       (2) Application.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall 
     apply to any investigation opened, or referral made, as 
     described under clause (xii) of section 2302(a)(2)(A) of 
     title 5, United States Code, as added by such paragraph, on 
     or after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Right to Petition Congress.--
       (1) In general.--Section 2302(b)(9) of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (D), by adding ``or'' after the 
     semicolon at the end; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) the exercise of any right protected under section 
     7211;''.
       (2) Application.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall 
     apply to the exercise of any right described in section 
     2302(b)(9)(E) of title 5, United States Code, as added by 
     paragraph (1), occurring on or after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (c) Prohibition on Disclosure of Whistleblower Identity.--
       (1) In general.--Section 2302 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g)(1) No employee of an agency may willfully communicate 
     or transmit to any individual who is not an officer or 
     employee of the Government the identity of, or personally 
     identifiable information about, any other employee because 
     that other employee has made, or is suspected to have made, a 
     disclosure protected by subsection (b)(8), unless--
       ``(A) the other employee provides express written consent 
     prior to the communication or transmission of their identity 
     or personally identifiable information;
       ``(B) the communication or transmission is made in 
     accordance with the provisions of section 552a;
       ``(C) the communication or transmission is made to a lawyer 
     for the sole purpose of providing legal advice to an employee 
     accused of whistleblower retaliation; or
       ``(D) the communication or transmission is required or 
     permitted by any other provision of law.
       ``(2) In this subsection, the term `officer or employee of 
     the Government' means--
       ``(A) the President;
       ``(B) a Member of Congress;
       ``(C) a member of the uniformed services;
       ``(D) an employee as that term is defined in section 2105, 
     including an employee of the United States Postal Service, 
     the Postal Regulatory Commission, or the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs (including any employee appointed pursuant 
     to chapter 73 or 74 of title 38); and
       ``(E) any other officer or employee in any branch of the 
     Government of the United States.''.
       (2) Application.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall 
     apply to any transmission or communication described in 
     subsection (g) of section 2302 of title 5, United States 
     Code, as added by paragraph (1), made on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (d) Right to Petition Congress.--
       (1) In general.--Section 7211 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 7211. Employees' right to petition or furnish 
       information or respond to Congress

       ``(a) In General.--Each officer or employee of the Federal 
     Government, individually or collectively, has a right to--
       ``(1) petition Congress or a Member of Congress;
       ``(2) furnish information, documents, or testimony to 
     either House of Congress, any Member of Congress, or any 
     committee or subcommittee of the Congress; or
       ``(3) respond to any request for information, documents, or 
     testimony from either House of Congress or any Committee or 
     subcommittee of Congress.
       ``(b) Prohibited Actions.--No officer or employee of the 
     Federal Government may interfere

[[Page H7829]]

     with or deny the right set forth in subsection (a), including 
     by--
       ``(1) prohibiting or preventing, or attempting or 
     threatening to prohibit or prevent, any other officer or 
     employee of the Federal Government from engaging in activity 
     protected in subsection (a); or
       ``(2) removing, suspending from duty without pay, demoting, 
     reducing in rank, seniority, status, pay, or performance or 
     efficiency rating, denying promotion to, relocating, 
     reassigning, transferring, disciplining, or discriminating in 
     regard to any employment right, entitlement, or benefit, or 
     any term or condition of employment of, any other officer or 
     employee of the Federal Government or attempting or 
     threatening to commit any of the foregoing actions protected 
     in subsection (a).
       ``(c) Application.--This section shall not be construed to 
     authorize disclosure of any information that is--
       ``(1) specifically prohibited from disclosure by any other 
     provision of Federal law; or
       ``(2) specifically required by Executive order to be kept 
     secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of 
     foreign affairs, unless disclosure is otherwise authorized by 
     law.
       ``(d) Definition of Officer or Employee of the Federal 
     Government.--For purposes of this section, the term `officer 
     or employee of the Federal Government' includes--
       ``(1) the President;
       ``(2) a Member of Congress;
       ``(3) a member of the uniformed services;
       ``(4) an employee (as that term is defined in section 
     2105);
       ``(5) an employee of the United States Postal Service or 
     the Postal Regulatory Commission; and
       ``(6) an employee appointed under chapter 73 or 74 of title 
     38.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subchapter II of chapter 72 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking the item related to section 7211 and 
     inserting the following:

``7211. Employees' right to petition or furnish information or respond 
              to Congress.''.

     SEC. 3. ENHANCEMENT OF WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS.

       (a) Disclosures Relating to Officers or Employees of an 
     Office of Inspector General.--Section 1213(c) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3) If the information transmitted under this subsection 
     disclosed a violation of law, rule, or regulation, or gross 
     waste, gross mismanagement, abuse of authority, or a 
     substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, 
     by any officer or employee of an Office of Inspector General, 
     the Special Counsel may refer the matter to the Council of 
     the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, which 
     shall comply with the standards and procedures applicable to 
     investigations and reports under subsection (c).''.
       (b) Retaliatory Referrals to Inspectors General.--Section 
     1214(d) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(3) In any case in which the Special Counsel determines 
     that a referral to an Inspector General of an entity of the 
     Federal Government was in retaliation for a disclosure or 
     protected activity described in section 2302(b)(8) or in 
     retaliation for exercising a right described in section 
     2302(b)(9)(A)(i), the Special Counsel shall transmit that 
     finding in writing to the Inspector General within seven days 
     of making the finding. The Inspector General shall consider 
     that finding and make a determination on whether to initiate 
     an investigation or continue an investigation based on the 
     referral that the Special Counsel found to be retaliatory.''.
       (c) Ensuring Timely Relief.--
       (1) Individual right of action.--Section 1221 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``section 
     2302(b)(8) or section 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D),'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``section 2302(b)(8), 
     section 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), (D), or (E), section 
     2302(b)(13), or section 2302(g),''.
       (2) Stays.--Section 1221(c)(2) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Any stay requested under paragraph (1) shall be 
     granted within 10 calendar days (excluding Saturdays, 
     Sundays, and legal holidays) after the date the request is 
     made, if the Board determines--
       ``(A) that there is a substantial likelihood that protected 
     activity was a contributing factor to the personnel action 
     involved; or
       ``(B) the Board otherwise determines that such a stay would 
     be appropriate.''.
       (3) Appeal of stay.--Section 1221(c) of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) If any stay requested under paragraph (1) is denied, 
     the employee, former employee, or applicant may, within 7 
     days after receiving notice of the denial, file an appeal for 
     expedited review by the Board. The agency shall have 7 days 
     thereafter to respond. The Board shall provide a decision not 
     later than 21 days after receiving the appeal. During the 
     period of appeal, both parties may supplement the record with 
     information unavailable to them at the time the stay was 
     first requested.''.
       (4) Access to district court; jury trials.--
       (A) In general.--Section 1221(i) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (i) by striking ``(i) Subsections'' and inserting ``(i)(1) 
     Subsections''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2)(A) If, in the case of an employee, former employee, 
     or applicant for employment who seeks corrective action from 
     the Merit Systems Protection Board based on an alleged 
     prohibited personnel practice described in section 
     2302(b)(8), section 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), (D), or (E), 
     section 2302(b)(13), or section 2302(g), no final order or 
     decision is issued by the Board within 180 days after the 
     date on which a request for such corrective action has been 
     duly submitted to the Board, such employee, former employee, 
     or applicant may, after providing written notice to the 
     Special Counsel and the Board and only within 20 days after 
     providing such notice, bring an action for review de novo 
     before the appropriate United States district court, and such 
     action shall, at the request of either party to such action, 
     be tried before a jury. Upon filing of an action with the 
     appropriate United States district court, any proceedings 
     before the Board shall cease and the employee, former 
     employee, or applicant for employment waives any right to 
     refile with the Board.
       ``(B) If the Board certifies (in writing) to the parties of 
     a case that the complexity of such case requires a longer 
     period of review, subparagraph (A) shall be applied by 
     substituting `240 days' for `180 days'.
       ``(C) In any such action brought before a United States 
     district court under subparagraph (A), the court--
       ``(i) shall apply the standards set forth in subsection 
     (e); and
       ``(ii) may award any relief which the court considers 
     appropriate, including any relief described in subsection 
     (g).''.
       (B) Application.--
       (i) The amendments made by subparagraph (A) shall apply to 
     any corrective action duly submitted to the Merit Systems 
     Protection Board, during the five-year period preceding the 
     date of enactment of this Act, by an employee, former 
     employee, or applicant for employment based on an alleged 
     prohibited personnel practice described in section 
     2302(b)(8), 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D), or 
     2302(b)(13) of title 5, United States Code, with respect to 
     which no final order or decision has been issued by the 
     Board.
       (ii) In the case of an individual described in clause (i) 
     whose duly submitted claim to the Board was made not later 
     than 180 days before the date of enactment of this Act, such 
     individual may only bring an action before a United States 
     district court as described in section 1221(i)(2) of title 5, 
     United States Code, (as added by subparagraph (A) if that 
     individual--

       (I) provides written notice to the Office of Special 
     Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board not later than 
     90 days after the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (II) brings such action not later than 20 days after 
     providing such notice.

       (d) Recipients of Whistleblower Disclosures.--Section 
     2302(b)(8)(B) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``or to the Inspector General of an agency or 
     another employee designated by the head of the agency to 
     receive such disclosures'' and inserting ``the Inspector 
     General of an agency, a supervisor in the employee's direct 
     chain of command up to and including the head of the 
     employing agency, or to an employee designated by any of the 
     aforementioned individuals for the purpose of receiving such 
     disclosures''.
       (e) Attorney Fees.--
       (1) In general.--Section 7703(a) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) If an employee, former employee, or applicant for 
     employment is the prevailing party under a proceeding brought 
     under this section, the employee, former employee, or 
     applicant for employment shall be entitled to attorney fees 
     for all representation carried out pursuant to this section. 
     In such an action for attorney fees, the agency responsible 
     for taking the personnel action shall be the respondent and 
     shall be responsible for paying the fees.''.
       (2) Application.--In addition to any proceeding brought by 
     an employee, former employee, or applicant for employment on 
     or after the date of enactment of this Act to a Federal court 
     under section 7703 of title 5, United States Code, the 
     amendment made by paragraph (1) shall apply to any proceeding 
     brought by an employee, former employee, or applicant for 
     employment under such section before the date of enactment of 
     this Act with respect to which the applicable Federal court 
     has not issued a final decision.
       (f) Extending Whistleblower Protection Act to Certain 
     Employees.--
       (1) In general.--Section 2302(a)(2)(A) of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended in the matter following clause 
     (xiii)--
       (A) by inserting ``subsection (b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), (D), 
     or (E), subsection (b)(13), or subsection (g),'' after 
     ``subsection (b)(8),''; and
       (B) by inserting after ``title 31'' the following: ``, a 
     commissioned officer or applicant for employment in the 
     Public Health Service, and an officer or applicant for 
     employment in the commissioned officer corps of the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 261 of the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer 
     Corps Act of 2002 (33 U.S.C. 3071) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) by striking paragraph (8); and
       (ii) by redesignating paragraphs (9) through (26) as 
     paragraphs (8) through (25), respectively; and
       (B) in subsection (b), by striking the second sentence.
       (3) Application.--
       (A) In general.--With respect to an officer or applicant 
     for employment in the commissioned officer corps of the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the 
     amendments made by paragraphs (1) and (2) shall apply to any 
     personnel action taken against such officer or applicant on 
     or after the date of enactment of

[[Page H7830]]

     the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
     Commissioned Officer Corps Amendments Act of 2020 (Public Law 
     116-259) for making any disclosure protected under section 
     2302(8) of title 5, United States Code.
       (B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any 
     personnel action with respect to which a complaint has been 
     filed pursuant to section 1034 of title 10, United States 
     Code, and a final decision has been rendered regarding such 
     complaint.
       (g) Relief.--
       (1) In general.--Section 7701(b)(2)(A) of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``upon the making of the 
     decision'' and inserting ``upon making of the decision, 
     necessary to make the employee whole as if there had been no 
     prohibited personnel practice, including training, seniority 
     and promotions consistent with the employee's prior record''.
       (2) Application.--In addition to any appeal made on or 
     after the date of enactment of this Act to the Merit Systems 
     Protection Board under section 7701 of title 5, United States 
     Code, the amendment made by paragraph (1) shall apply to any 
     appeal made under such section before the date of enactment 
     of this Act with respect to which the Board has not issued a 
     final decision.

     SEC. 4. CLASSIFYING CERTAIN FURLOUGHS AS ADVERSE PERSONNEL 
                   ACTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 7512 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:
       ``(5) a furlough of more than 14 days but less than 30 
     days; and
       ``(6) a furlough of 13 days or less that is not due to a 
     lapse in appropriations;''.
       (b) Application.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to any furlough covered by such section 7512(5) 
     or (6) (as amended by such subsection) occurring on or after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. CODIFICATION OF PROTECTIONS FOR DISCLOSURES OF 
                   CENSORSHIP RELATED TO RESEARCH, ANALYSIS, OR 
                   TECHNICAL INFORMATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 2302 of title 5, United States 
     Code, as amended by section 2(c)(1), is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(h)(1) In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `applicant' means an applicant for a covered 
     position;
       ``(B) the term `censorship related to research, analysis, 
     or technical information' means any effort to distort, 
     misrepresent, or suppress research, analysis, or technical 
     information; and
       ``(C) the term `employee' means an employee in a covered 
     position in an agency.
       ``(2)(A) Any disclosure of information by an employee or 
     applicant for employment that the employee or applicant 
     reasonably believes is evidence of censorship related to 
     research, analysis, or technical information--
       ``(i) shall come within the protections of subsection 
     (b)(8)(A) if--
       ``(I) the employee or applicant reasonably believes that 
     the censorship related to research, analysis, or technical 
     information is or will cause--
       ``(aa) any violation of law, rule, or regulation; or
       ``(bb) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an 
     abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to 
     public health or safety; and
       ``(II) such disclosure is not specifically prohibited by 
     law or such information is not specifically required by 
     Executive order to be kept classified in the interest of 
     national defense or the conduct of foreign affairs; and
       ``(ii) shall come within the protections of subsection 
     (b)(8)(B) if--
       ``(I) the employee or applicant reasonably believes that 
     the censorship related to research, analysis, or technical 
     information is or will cause--
       ``(aa) any violation of law, rule, or regulation; or
       ``(bb) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an 
     abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to 
     public health or safety; and
       ``(II) the disclosure is made to the Special Counsel, or to 
     the Inspector General of an agency or another person 
     designated by the head of the agency to receive such 
     disclosures, consistent with the protection of sources and 
     methods.
       ``(3) A disclosure shall not be excluded from paragraph (2) 
     for any reason described under subsection (f)(1) or (2).
       ``(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     imply any limitation on the protections of employees and 
     applicants afforded by any other provision of law, including 
     protections with respect to any disclosure of information 
     believed to be evidence of censorship related to research, 
     analysis, or technical information.''.
       (b) Repeal.--
       (1) In general.--Section 110 of the Whistleblower 
     Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-199) is 
     hereby repealed.
       (2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to limit or otherwise affect any action under such 
     section 110 commenced before the date of enactment of this 
     Act or any protections afforded by such section with respect 
     to such action.

     SEC. 6. TITLE 5 TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       Title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in section 1212(h), by striking ``or (9)'' each place 
     it appears and inserting ``, (b)(9), (b)(13), or (g)'';
       (2) in section 1214--
       (A) in subsections (a) and (b), by striking ``section 
     2302(b)(8) or section 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D)'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``section 2302(b)(8), 
     section 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), (D), or (E), section 
     2302(b)(13), or section 2302(g)''; and
       (B) in subsection (i), by striking ``section 2302(b)(8) or 
     subparagraph (A)(i), (B), (C), or (D) of section 2302(b)(9)'' 
     and inserting ``section 2302(b)(8), subparagraph (A)(i), (B), 
     (C), (D), or (E) of section 2302(b)(9), section 2302(b)(13), 
     or section 2302(g)'';
       (3) in section 1215(a)(3)(B), by striking ``section 
     2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D)'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``section 2302(b)(8), section 
     2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), (D), or (E), section 2302(b)(13), 
     or section 2302(g)'';
       (4) in section 2302--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or (g)'' after 
     ``subsection (b)''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (2)(C)(i), by striking ``subsection 
     (b)(8) or section 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D)'' and 
     inserting ``section 2302(b)(8), section 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), 
     (B), (C), (D), or (E), section 2302(b)(13), or section 
     2302(g)''; and
       (B) in subsection (c)(1)(B), by striking ``paragraph (8) or 
     subparagraph (A)(i), (B), (C), or (D) of paragraph (9) of 
     subsection (b)'' and inserting ``paragraph (8), subparagraph 
     (A)(i), (B), (C), or (D) of paragraph (9), or paragraph (13) 
     of subsection (b) or subsection (g)'';
       (5) in section 7515(a)(2), by striking ``paragraph (8), 
     (9), or (14) of section 2302(b)'' and inserting ``paragraph 
     (8), (9), (13), or (14) of section 2302(b) or section 
     2302(g)'';
       (6) in section 7701(c)(2)(B), by inserting ``or section 
     2302(g)'' after ``section 2302(b)''; and
       (7) in section 7703(b)(1)(B), by striking ``section 
     2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D)'' and 
     inserting ``section 2302(b)(8), section 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), 
     (B), (C), (D), or (E), section 2302(b)(13), or section 
     2302(g)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall 
be in order except those printed in part C of House Report 117-464 and 
amendments en bloc described in section 4 of House Resolution 1339.
  Each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed 
in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
for division of the question.
  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of the Committee on 
Oversight and Reform or her designee to offer amendments en bloc 
consisting of amendments printed in part C of the report not earlier 
disposed of. Amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, shall be 
debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking minority member of the committee or their designees, shall 
not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to demand for 
division of the question.


   Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York

  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, pursuant to House 
Resolution 1339, I offer amendments en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  Amendments en bloc consisting of amendment Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, 
printed in part C of House Report 117-464, offered by Mrs. Carolyn B. 
Maloney of New York:


      amendment no. 1 offered by mr. auchincloss of massachusetts

       At the end of section 3(c)(4), insert the following:
       (C) GAO report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall--
       (i) conduct a study on actions brought before Federal court 
     pursuant to paragraph (2) of section 1221(i) of title 5, 
     United States Code (as added by subparagraph (A) of this 
     paragraph) that, at the minimum, examines the timeliness of 
     Merit Systems Protection Board whistleblower complaint 
     rulings, the rates of individuals opting for a district court 
     trial under such paragraph, and recommendations for the Board 
     to make improvements to its whistleblower claim review 
     process; and
       (ii) submit a report on such study to Congress and publish 
     such report on the Government Accountability Office's public 
     website.


          amendment no. 2 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas

       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 7. INSPECTOR GENERAL WHISTLEBLOWER INFORMATION 
                   COLLECTION SYSTEMS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of each Federal 
     agency and each designated Federal entity (as those terms are 
     defined in sections 12(5) and 8G, respectively, of the 
     Inspector General Act of 1978) shall establish and thereafter 
     maintain a mechanism for the inspector general to receive 
     anonymous whistleblower information (including fraud, waste, 
     and abuse).
       (b) Requirements.--
       (1) Anonymity.--Any whistleblower mechanism established 
     under subsection (a) by an

[[Page H7831]]

     inspector general shall maintain total anonymity for any 
     individual who submits information through such mechanism.
       (2) Acceptable systems.--In order to maintain anonymity, 
     any such mechanism may not include the use of any computer or 
     telephone systems in collecting such information, but may 
     include the use of the United States mail, physical 
     receptacles for receiving information, or any other system 
     that can assure anonymity.
       (3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to limit or otherwise prohibit an inspector general 
     from using computer or telephone systems when carrying out 
     any other program, project, or activity not authorized by 
     this section.


          amendment no. 3 offered by ms. porter of california

       Insert the following at the end of section 3:
       (h) IG Semiannual Reports.--Section 5(a)(20) of the 
     Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the semicolon at the 
     end and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) the number of instances in which the Office did not 
     make a determination regarding whether there were reasonable 
     grounds to believe that a prohibited personnel practice had 
     occurred, existed, or was to be taken within 240 days after 
     receiving a whistleblower retaliation complaint;''.


         amendment no. 4 offered by ms. spanberger of virginia

       Page 3, line 13, strike ``(xiii)'' and insert ``(xiv)''.
       Page 4, line 6, strike ``and''.
       Page 4, after line 12, insert the following
       (3) Security clearances.--Section 2302(a)(2)(A) of title 5, 
     United States Code, as amended by paragraph (1), is further 
     amended by inserting after clause (xii) the following:
       ``(xiii) a suspension, revocation, denial, or other 
     determination relating to a security clearance or any other 
     access determination made by an agency; and''.
       Page 15, line 25, strike ``(xiii)'' and insert ``(xiv)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1339, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) and the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Comer) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer 
amendments en bloc.
  The amendment offered by Congresswoman Katie Porter would require 
inspectors general to report in their semiannual reports the number of 
times their office was not able to resolve a whistleblower retaliation 
complaint within 8 months of receiving that complaint. This requirement 
ensures that inspectors general are promptly investigating 
whistleblower retaliation complaints.
  The next amendment, offered by Congressman Jake Auchincloss, would 
require the Government Accountability Office to examine and report on 
whistleblower protection actions, including the timeliness with which 
the Merit Systems Protection Board issues rulings on whistleblower 
complaints, how often individuals choose a jury trial, and 
recommendations to improve the claim review process.

                              {time}  1630

  This requirement evaluates whether the whistleblower review process 
is effective and identifies areas for improvement.
  The amendment offered by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee would 
require inspectors general to maintain a mechanism to receive anonymous 
whistleblower reports. In certain instances, this offers the protection 
and comfort a whistleblower needs to report government abuses and 
corruption.
  The next amendment, offered by Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger, 
would enable whistleblowers, outside the intelligence community, to 
appeal adverse security clearance actions to the Merit Systems 
Protection Board.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to adopt this commonsense package of 
amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMER. Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose the amendments en bloc. I rise 
in opposition to the en bloc package of amendments offered by 
Chairwoman Maloney.
  This package contains an amendment offered by Representative 
Auchincloss, which would require the Government Accountability Office 
to conduct a study of whistleblower complaints ruled on by the Merit 
Systems Protection Board and make recommendations about the 
whistleblower review process.
  The problem with this amendment is that the MSPB's Office of General 
Counsel already performs the oversight functions for the MSPB under the 
Inspector General Act of 1978. This office is capable of doing the work 
the amendment would task to the GAO.
  Reviewing the MSPB determinations and monitoring the Federal courts 
is not a smart use of the GAO's limited resources. The GAO needs to 
remain focused on pending statutorily mandated work.
  I also oppose the amendment offered by Representative Jackson Lee, 
which is trying to help inspectors general offices receive anonymous 
whistleblower information, but it actually makes it far more difficult.
  This amendment won't allow IG offices to use any telephone or 
computer systems to receive the anonymous whistleblower information. 
Instead, they will have to rely on receiving such sensitive information 
by mail, which is obviously problematic, including complicating an IG's 
ability to evaluate the validity and authenticity of these tips and 
complaints.
  I also oppose the amendment offered by Representative Porter, which 
attempts to create another unnecessary reporting requirement for the 
inspectors general to report to Congress on the timeliness of resolving 
whistleblower retaliation complaints.
  The problem is that IG offices are already required to include this 
information in their semiannual report to Congress, provided every 6 
months. This includes information on what, if any, consequences have 
been imposed to hold the official who engaged in retaliation 
accountable. This amendment's duplicative reporting requirement only 
wastes more time that an IG should be spending on investigating waste, 
fraud, and abuse.
  Finally, I oppose the amendment offered by Representative Spanberger, 
which would prohibit the suspension, revocation, denial, or other 
determination relating to a security clearance of a whistleblower. This 
complete prohibition could put national security at risk.
  For example, an employee working to undermine a national security 
policy or program could claim that he or she is a whistleblower and 
continue to have access to sensitive information, even while the agency 
evaluated the merits of the whistleblower's accusation.
  There are approved procedures for whistleblowing in the intelligence 
community, but this amendment would prohibit revoking a security 
clearance, even if the so-called whistleblower ignores those 
procedures. This is an unacceptable risk to our Nation. Those holding 
security clearances have assumed a special level of public trust, and 
with that comes special expectations.
  Mr. Chair, I oppose these amendments, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the distinguished 
chairwoman of the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism and Homeland Security.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for 
her work as chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform. Again, 
I give her my deepest appreciation for the enormous legacy of 
leadership that she has given to issues of empowerment, civil rights, 
civil liberties, and the rights of women. I thank Chairwoman Maloney.
  I rise today to support the underlying bill, H.R. 2988, and address 
my amendment, of which I am very grateful has been included in the en 
bloc.
  It does make a difference. Whistleblowers can help change governments 
for the best. They are part of the constitutional infrastructure of 
ensuring due process and the rights of the vulnerable.
  My amendment reinforces the spirit of confidentiality by providing 
another way to communicate whistleblower information to an OIG that 
poses less risk of confidentiality being lost or being breached while 
not affecting existing mechanisms, especially in some cases when there 
is a concern about the threat of retaliation. A potential whistleblower 
might be unwilling to provide information for fear of consequences if 
their identity is disclosed.

[[Page H7832]]

  I am very glad to say that the Government Accountability Project is 
supporting my amendment. They wrote in their letter of support for my 
amendment: ``This is solid, commonsense legislation to restore what 
works if we let it. For many whistleblowers, the decisive factor 
whether they bear witness or remain silent observers is whether they 
will remain anonymous.''
  ``It will increase the flow of evidence and prevent retaliation.''
  Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the Government Accountability 
Project letter dated September 13, 2022.


                            Government Accountability Project,

                               Washington, DC, September 13, 2022.
     Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Lee: This letter is to express support 
     and appreciation for your amendment to the Whistleblower 
     Protection Improvement Act that would upgrade the safety of 
     channels for anonymous whistleblowing disclosures to Offices 
     of Inspector General. The amendment would require OIG's to 
     restore traditional, effective channels to share evidence 
     that had been canceled for more convenient but unreliable 
     high tech options such as the internet or telephones. In 
     addition to those channels, agencies would have to restore 
     services such as secure drop boxes and accept anonymous 
     disclosures by mail.
       This is solid, common-sense legislation to restore what 
     works if we let it. For many whistleblowers, the decisive 
     factor whether they bear witness or remain silent observers 
     is whether they will remain anonymous. Unfortunately, many 
     understandably do not trust OIG confidentiality safeguards, 
     because OIG's routinely breach them with impunity. While 
     nearly all lG's have anonymous hotlines or phone channels, 
     those engaging in surveillance often are one step ahead with 
     tactics that expose the witness. This is an instance where 
     the old-fashioned way is the safest. But at too many agencies 
     it no longer is available, as risky high-tech options now 
     monopolize the disclosure channel.
       The bottom line is that sometimes tried and true approaches 
     can work best, even if less convenient. Your amendment would 
     apply that truth where it counts most--shielding the identify 
     of endangered whistleblowers. It will increase the flow of 
     evidence and prevent retaliation.
           Appreciatively,
                                                       Tom Devine,
                                                   Legal Director.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the en 
bloc, the underlying legislation, and the Jackson Lee amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2988, the Whistleblower 
Protection Improvement Act, and thank you for bringing this important 
legislation to the floor today.
  I applaud the Committee on Oversight and Reform for this timely and 
purposeful bill. By strengthening whistleblower protections, H.R. 2988 
would enhance the capabilities of the Offices of Inspector General at 
each government agency to improve government accountability and 
transparency.
  Whistleblowers are uniquely positioned to know of actions that 
derogate from laws, regulations, stated government objectives, and the 
best interests of the American people.
  As a matter of public policy, potential whistleblowers should be 
encouraged to come forth with information that improves our 
government's operations, efficiency, and effectiveness.
  To incentivize such noble conduct, whistleblowers must be assured of 
protection and insulated from retaliation for the accountability they 
facilitate when an OIG pursues their leads.
  Indeed, being a whistleblower is an act of patriotism--helping our 
government serve Americans more responsibly--and those who provide this 
service should be honored, not vilified.
  I would also like to thank the Rules Committee for making my 
amendment in order, and the Committee on Oversight and Reform for 
including it in the En Bloc amendment.
  My amendment adds a key mechanism to amplify the operational impact 
of the bill, and it is supported by the Government Accountability 
Project.
  H.R. 2988 addresses very important aspects of the handling of 
whistleblower complaints, whistleblower rights against any retaliatory 
action, and vital protections to avoid disclosures of identity, 
breaches of confidentiality, and retaliation.
  My amendment reinforces the spirit of confidentiality by providing 
another way to communicate whistleblower information to an OIG that 
poses less risk of confidentiality being breached, while not affecting 
existing mechanisms.
  In some cases--especially when there is concern about a threat of 
retaliation--a potential whistleblower might be unwilling to provide 
information for fear of consequences if their identity is disclosed.
  To encourage whistleblowers to share information in these situations, 
my amendment directs the Office of Inspector General in each agency to 
establish a mechanism to receive whistleblower information that is 
completely anonymous and assured of remaining anonymous.
  By being able to submit information in a way that anonymity is 
assured, some potential whistleblowers who might otherwise not be 
willing to share information with the OIG may be willing to do so.
  As the Government Accountability Project wrote in their letter of 
support for my amendment, ``This is solid, common-sense legislation to 
restore what works if we let it. For many whistleblowers, the decisive 
factor whether they bear witness or remain silent observers is whether 
they will remain anonymous. . . . It will increase the flow of evidence 
and prevent retaliation.''
  The anonymous method could be by sending a letter through the mail, 
dropping a paper note into a receptacle, or some other mechanism 
devised by the OIGs that cannot be traced back to the whistleblower.
  These approaches assure anonymity, unlike submission through a 
website or phone call, which could be traced back to the person 
submitting the information.
  By submitting facts with full anonymity, a whistleblower does not run 
the risk of their identity being disclosed either accidentally, by 
court order, or by other means.
  Ideally, an OIG may prefer to know the identity of the person 
providing insights so they can contact them for more details.
  Yet, since some people with vital information may refuse to submit it 
due to the risk of exposure, the public interest in receiving useful 
insights from an anonymous source outweighs an OIG's interest in 
contacting them.
  With the information that it receives, the OIG could pursue facts and 
elevate its investigation through other channels.
  My amendment would create a channel for this to occur.
  Mr. COMER. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Auchincloss), the vice chair of 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on 
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
  Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment 
to the Whistleblower Protection Improvement Act.
  Historically, there has been a double standard between Federal and 
corporate whistleblowers seeking reprieve for retaliatory actions taken 
against them. While corporate whistleblowers can have their day in 
court, Federal whistleblowers' cases fall only under the jurisdiction 
of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Whistleblower Protection 
Improvement Act would remedy this by allowing certain Federal 
whistleblowers to file their claims in district court.
  My amendment would ensure that we continue to make evidence-based 
improvements to the Federal whistleblower case review process by 
requiring the GAO to study the outcomes of this bill. Specifically, my 
amendment calls on the GAO to report on the timeliness of MSPB rulings 
and the rates of Federal whistleblowers opting for district court 
trials. It requires the GAO to offer recommendations for the MSPB to 
make improvements to its review process so that Federal whistleblowers 
who put their jobs, careers, and reputations on the line to call out 
wrongdoing are given the respect of a timely review.
  This bill is critical to improving protections for Federal 
whistleblowers and enhancing accountability across the Federal 
Government. My amendment would ensure that we collect the evidence 
necessary to continue to make improvements.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendments en bloc.
  Mr. COMER. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to 
close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time for 
closing.
  Let me conclude by saying this: We have countless rules on the books 
pertaining to whistleblower protection. We have good whistleblower 
rules. I can assure my friends on the other side of the aisle, we have 
plenty of whistleblowers coming forward now with issues, and they are 
going to be protected. The rules on the books will protect those 
whistleblowers.
  What my friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to do, I 
fear, is create a situation where any poor-performing employee who is 
receiving

[[Page H7833]]

poor reviews from their agency can claim to be a whistleblower, and 
therefore, they will be on the Federal payroll for the rest of their 
career. Then they can retire and draw a pension for the rest of their 
life.
  This is unacceptable in the private sector. We care about 
whistleblowers. We welcome whistleblowers to come to the House 
Committee on Oversight and Reform to speak to the Republican minority 
members. They are and they will be protected because we have good 
whistleblower laws on the books.
  These proposed amendments make our good whistleblower laws worse, and 
we need to oppose them.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  The underlying bill is both landmark legislation for freedom of 
speech and for government accountability. I strongly urge my colleagues 
to vote in favor of this landmark legislation, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, I move that the committee now rise.
  The CHAIR. Will the gentlewoman withdraw her motion?
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I withdraw my motion.
  The CHAIR. The motion is withdrawn.
  The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendments en bloc offered by the gentlewoman from New York will be 
postponed.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I move that the 
Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Veasey) having assumed the chair, Mr. Blumenauer, Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2988) to 
amend title 5, United States Code, to modify and enhance protections 
for Federal Government whistleblowers, and for other purposes, had come 
to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________