[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 4712-4713]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



[[Page 4712]]

                          EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

     ``PAUL REVERE FORUM'' AND THE PAUL REVERE FREEDOM TO WARN ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. STEVE ISRAEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, April 15, 2002

  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, on February 27, 2002, I was honored to be 
joined by a number of American patriots for a forum on my legislation, 
the Paul Revere Freedom To Warn Act.
  The courage of the whistleblowers who joined me that day was 
wonderful testimony to the power of the individual and to the 
responsibility we all have to monitor our national security. Brave men 
and women have taken great personal risks to protect all of us. Now we 
must do a better job protecting them.
  For years, whistleblowers have been forced to make personal 
sacrifices in order to do what is right. I would submit that, at the 
least, whistleblowers deserve to be free from retaliation for simply 
doing what is right.
  The is why I sponsored the Paul Revere Freedom to Warn Act. This 
legislation would merely give people a remedy. This legislation would 
merely say that any whistleblower who is retaliated against (in 
contravention of the Lloyd-LaFollette Act, which is current law), 
should have the right to seek redress for their harm.
  I would like to thank all those who attended the forum on February 27 
as well as the event's sponsors, the Government Accountability Project, 
the Project on Government Oversight, and the National Whistleblower 
Center. In particular, I would like to thank former New York Police 
Detective Frank Serpico for detailing his personal account. Mr. 
Serpico, who courageously exposed police corruption in the 1970's, is a 
shining example of how one person's courage can change the system and 
make life better for millions of people.
  I was moved by the heroism of these individuals and unsettled by our 
failure to protect them in the past. This was no less true with Mr. 
Bogdan Dzakovic, whose efforts to warn the FAA about serious flaws in 
airport security, were virtually ignored. Matthew Zipoli, Randy 
Robarge, Ronald E. Timm, and Darlene Catalan, other patriots and 
whistleblowers, told their stories, and I thank them as well for 
reminding us that whistleblowers need our protection now more than 
ever.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that articles dealing with the forum and 
whistleblower issues from the Christian Science Monitor, the Washington 
Post and the Bureau of National Affairs' Government Employee Relations 
Report appear in the Record at this time.

          [From the Christian Science Monitor, Feb. 28, 2002]

                        Defending Whistleblowers

       The public is well served by the courageous few who put 
     their careers at risk by going public about a dangerous or 
     unethical situation in their area of work.
       The latest example of such noble whistleblowing is Enron's 
     Sherron Watkins, who brought to light the accounting fiction 
     of Enron's books.
       But she, like many whistleblowers, had difficulties getting 
     the truth out. About 90 percent of whistleblowers experience 
     some reprisal or threat of one.
       A public forum is being held on Capitol Hill this week to 
     drum up more protection for public truthtellers whether they 
     be in aviation, nuclear power plants, border security, or the 
     military.
       Many parts of government rely on secrecy for their work 
     but, as Tom Devine of the watchdog Government Accountability 
     Project points out in these post-9/11 days: ``Secrecy can be 
     a threat to national security. It can sustain government 
     breakdowns that create vulnerability to terrorism.''
       The 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act needs to have some 
     loopholes closed, and a bipartisan effort within Congress to 
     do just that is gaining momentum.
       Congress should seize the opportunity to make sure citizens 
     who sound the alarm have the rights--and protections--they 
     need in order to help safeguard the greater society.

                                  ____
                                  

               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 28, 2002]

              More Help Sought for Those Who Blow Whistle

                            (By Bill Miller)

       Joined by government insiders who had gone public with 
     concerns about lapses in security at airports, nuclear 
     facilities and borders, three watchdog groups yesterday 
     called for stronger federal laws to protect whistleblowers 
     from workplace retaliation.
       ``We can do a lot more to defend national security by 
     listening to the messengers,'' said Tom Devine, legal 
     director for the Government Accountability Project. ``These 
     people are the pros on the front lines, and they've been 
     beating their heads against bureaucratic walls for years and 
     warning that we're not prepared.''
       But, Devine said, those who come forward run the risk of 
     being harassed, demoted or put out of work because of 
     loopholes in the federal laws meant to protect them.
       The 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act was supposed to 
     protect federal employees, who wanted to expose misconduct, 
     waste or abuse. But it has been narrowly interpreted by the 
     U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to exclude 
     employees who first take their allegations to supervisors or 
     co-workers, Devine said. Judges also have demanded that 
     employees present ``irrefragable,''or indisputable, proof of 
     the credibility of their disclosures, a nearly impossible 
     standard, Devine said.
       Devine spoke at an event billed as the ``Paul Revere 
     Forum,'' in honor of the Revolutionary War hero who rode 
     through Massachusetts in 1775 to warn that the British troops 
     were coming. Two other groups--the Project on Government 
     Oversight (POGO) and the National Whistleblower Center--
     joined the call for tougher legislation.
       ``Rather than admit their failings, large institutions 
     always seek to destroy the messenger, no matter how high the 
     stakes,'' said Danielle Brian, POGO's executive director.
       The organizations presented first-person accounts from 
     former New York City police detective Frank Serpico, who 
     exposed police corruption in the 1970s, as well as from five 
     people who have warned that the United States remains 
     vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
       They included Randy Robage, a former nuclear power plant 
     supervisor, who said those facilities remain at risk; former 
     security officer Mathew Zipoli and government consultant 
     Ronald E. Timm, who alleged that security is lax at nuclear 
     weapons research facilities; Darlene Catalan, a former U.S. 
     Customs agent who said railroad tanker cars aren't being 
     adequately checked for explosives at the borders; and Bogdan 
     J. Dzakovic, the leader of a Federal Aviation Administration 
     security team who went public this week with allegations that 
     government officials ignored problems for years.
       Dzakovic said he led a security team that was able to get 
     weapons or explosives past airport checkpoints in 1998 but 
     that the FAA failed to follow up.
       The Office of Special Counsel, which investigates whistle-
     blower cases, asked the Transportation Department to review 
     Dzakovic's complaints on Feb 5; his allegations were first 
     reported on Monday by USA Today. Yesterday, Dzakovic said he 
     continued to work for the new federal Transportation Security 
     Administration. FAA officials have declined to discuss the 
     matter but maintained that security problems have been 
     addressed.
       Advocates said that two measures pending in Congress would 
     protect other whistleblowers so they could raise similar 
     concerns without fear of reprisals.
       The first is a proposed amendment to the 1989 law, backed 
     by Rep. Constance A. Morella (R-Md.), that would change the 
     standards to make it easier to win cases. The other is a bill 
     that would make it illegal for public or private employers to 
     retaliate against whistle-blowers and would permit them to 
     take their cases before federal juries. Its backers include 
     Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-
     Iowa).
       The timing is urgent, Israel said, adding: ``I think it's 
     vital that Americans are fully aware of their level of 
     security at our airports and that people working in the 
     federal government aren't afraid of alerting the public to 
     these conditions.''

                                  ____
                                  

     [From the Government Employee Relations Report, Mar. 5, 2002]

Whistleblowers Would Get Access to Courts, Right To Seek Damages Under 
                                New Bill

       Federal whistleblowers would be able to bypass the Merit 
     Systems Protection Board and go directly to U.S. district 
     court, where they could seek compensatory and punitive 
     damage, under legislation introduced in the House Feb. 26 by 
     Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.).
       The Paul Revere Freedom to Warn Act (H.R. 3806) also would 
     allow state and local

[[Page 4713]]

     government whistleblowers, as well as private sector 
     whistleblowers, to bring claims in federal court, providing 
     an alternative venue to the current patchwork of laws 
     affecting those whistleblowers.
       The bill provides that any person experiencing 
     whistleblower retaliation for communicating with Congress or 
     federal law enforcement agencies may bring a civil action--
     and is entitled to a jury trial--in the appropriate federal 
     trial court within three years of the date of the violation. 
     Suits against any person, organization, or employer 
     responsible for a violation may seek lost wages and benefits; 
     reinstatement; attorneys' fees and costs; compensatory and 
     punitive damages; and equitable, injunctive, and other 
     appropriate relief.
       Remedy for Inconsistent Coverage. One of the purposes of 
     the bill, according to Tom Devine, executive director of the 
     Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit groups based 
     in Washington, D.C., is to put teeth into the congressional 
     right-to-know law, the Lloyd LaFollette Act of 1912. While 
     that bill made whistleblower retaliation illegal, he said, it 
     did not provide for a legal remedy. Various whistleblower 
     statutes provide administrative remedies for federal and 
     nonfederal workers, but the coverage of those laws is 
     inconsistent, Devine said in talking points prepared for a 
     Feb. 27 press event to announce the introduction of the new 
     legislation.
       Legislation introduced by Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii) 
     June 7, 2001, in the Senate and by Rep. Constance A. Morella 
     (R-Md.) July 23, 2001, in the House as S. 995 and H.R. 2588, 
     respectively, would strengthen the Whistleblower Protection 
     Act, which is designed to protect federal whistleblowers (39 
     GERR 865, 8/7/01). Among other things, the Akaka and Morella 
     bills would clarify what types of information disclosures are 
     protected from prohibited personnel practices such as 
     retaliation.

     

                          ____________________