[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15784-15789]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1245
     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 585, DR. CHRIS KIRKPATRICK 
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT OF 2017; PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING 
    THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 16, 2017, THROUGH OCTOBER 20, 2017; AND 
      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 562 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 562

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 585) to 
     provide greater whistleblower protections for Federal 
     employees, increased awareness of Federal whistleblower 
     protections, and increased accountability and required 
     discipline for Federal supervisors who retaliate against 
     whistleblowers, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall 
     be considered as read. All points of order against provisions 
     in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit.
       Sec. 2.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     October 16, 2017, through October 20, 2017--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 3.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 4.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of October 12, 2017, or October 13, 2017, for 
     the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the 
     rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his 
     designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or her 
     designee on the designation of any matter for consideration 
     pursuant to this section.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
to include extraneous material on House Resolution 562, currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule 
forward on behalf of the Rules Committee.
  Yesterday, the Rules Committee heard testimony from our colleagues, 
Congressman Paul Mitchell, Oversight and Government Reform Committee 
Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, and Congresswoman Ann Kuster.

[[Page 15785]]

  This rule provides for the consideration of S. 585, the Dr. Chris 
Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act. The rule provides for 1 hour 
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the 
ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and 
provides for a motion to recommit.
  S. 585 was authored by Senator Johnson in the Senate, and the House 
companion was introduced by my friend, Congressman Sean Duffy. I want 
to thank my colleagues from Wisconsin for their leadership on this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses a problem that is, unfortunately, 
far too common. When Federal employees blow the whistle on questionable 
practices, they face risk of retaliation and intimidation from their 
own employers, even though the current Federal law is supposed to 
protect them. In fact, the underlying legislation provided for by this 
rule is named after an individual who ultimately took his own life 
after he became the victim of retaliation related to his 
whistleblowing.
  Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick was a Department of Veterans Affairs doctor who 
raised concerns that the VA might be overmedicating patients. A later 
VA investigation found that Dr. Kirkpatrick's concerns were warranted, 
but it was too late. Dr. Kirkpatrick had already suffered retribution 
from within the VA and was eventually dismissed from the agency. On the 
day of his termination, Dr. Kirkpatrick took his own life.
  Dr. Kirkpatrick's story is a tragedy, one that none of us ever wants 
to see repeated.
  The Department of Veterans Affairs has become a de facto poster child 
for hostility toward whistleblowers. In fact, according to the Office 
of Special Counsel--the agency tasked with investigation and redressing 
whistleblower retaliation--the OSC has seen a sharp increase in the 
number of whistleblower cases from VA employees.
  OSC Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner went on to say that: ``. . . it is 
clear that the workplace culture in many VA facilities is hostile to 
whistleblowers and actively discourages them from coming forward with 
what is often critical information.''
  This disturbing trend may be most visible at the VA, but the problem 
of backlash against whistleblowers persists across the Federal 
Government.
  Let me make something clear. There are good actors and bad actors 
within each agency. There are good actors who shine light on the 
legitimate concerns in order to help their colleagues and the American 
people. There are also good actors who listen to those concerns and 
address them with integrity, and treat whistleblowers with respect.
  Unfortunately, there are also bad actors. These are the ones that 
this legislation seeks to address, and the problem they create is the 
one that the underlying bill works to solve.
  The underlying legislation provides for better training for Federal 
employees so that they understand Federal whistleblower protections. It 
also sets minimum disciplinary standards across all agencies for 
retaliation against whistleblowers while increasing protections for 
people who have the courage to speak up when they discover a problem.
  The bill specifically requires the Department of Veterans Affairs to 
determine a plan to restrict unauthorized employee access to medical 
files, which--and it disturbs me to say this--has been used as a method 
of retaliation against whistleblowers.
  This legislation would make much-needed changes to ensure that those 
who come forward with information necessary to maintain and increase 
accountability within our government do not suffer backlash as well.
  Importantly, the bill also helps these individuals to know their 
rights and what protections and recourse are available to them.
  It is unfortunate that we need this legislation, but evidence has 
indicated that we do. The underlying legislation puts bullies who have 
made their nest in government agencies on notice that their behavior 
won't stand. It defends brave whistleblowers and puts the bad actor 
Federal employees on notice: hostile work environments that target 
whistleblowers are on the bureaucracy's endangered species list.
  The Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act also builds on 
the work the current administration is doing to address retribution 
levied against whistleblowers at the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  Importantly, I have colleagues on both sides of the aisle who agree 
that we need to address this problem and that the time to do so is now.
  The Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act passed the 
Senate by unanimous consent on May 25, 2017. We need to continue their 
good work here today.
  On behalf of the whistleblowers who have risked their careers and 
safety to right wrongs in our government, we need to support this 
strong and timely legislation. Calling for attention and action to 
address improper behavior within the United States Government should 
not be considered a risky undertaking.
  Many Federal employees work day in and day out on behalf of the 
American people, yet some feel threatened when they try in earnest to 
make things better.
  We need to continue the Senate's work on behalf of these individuals 
and the Americans that they serve. Everyone deserves a government that 
is accountable for its own decisions and for the actions of its agents.
  Today we have a chance to make strides towards a more accountable 
government. We have the opportunity to address the most pressing 
problems facing whistleblowers at the Department of Veterans Affairs 
and across the Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. As my colleague noted, 
Dr. Kirkpatrick was a psychologist at a VA medical center in Wisconsin. 
In 2009, he was fired from his job after allegedly questioning the 
overmedication of his patients, particularly related to opioids. 
Tragically, that very same day, Dr. Kirkpatrick committed suicide.
  I think we can all agree that protecting whistleblowers helps to 
ensure that waste, fraud, and abuse in our government does not go 
unnoticed or ignored.
  It is our responsibility to empower and encourage whistleblowers to 
come forward and speak out when something isn't right. No one should 
have to live in fear of retaliation for bringing the truth to light. No 
one should fear losing their job or career or their life simply for 
following the rules.
  The Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act increases 
accountability by enacting mandatory punishments for any manager or 
superior at an agency who has been found to have retaliated against a 
whistleblower.
  The bill also contains VA-specific reforms to better protect the 
privacy of medical records. Employee medical records would now be 
prohibited from being accessed in the case of potential retaliation 
cases, which adds an additional level of accountability for 
supervisors; and protecting the whistleblower from attacks and threats 
based on their personal medical history, which would be completely 
inappropriate.
  Mr. Speaker, while there are strong and necessary reforms in this 
bill, I want to make sure that you know that legislation can always be 
improved through the amendment process or at least through conducting a 
hearing and markup of a bill.
  Sadly, but unsurprisingly in this Congress, this bill didn't have a 
markup in committee; didn't have a hearing; is considered under a 
closed rule, where amendments that were brought forward aren't even 
allowed to be debated on the House floor.
  This might be a surprise even to the chairman of the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform, who himself requested a structured 
rule that allowed for debate on amendments.

[[Page 15786]]

  Much of my statement today echoes the sentiment of Oversight and 
Government Reform Ranking Member Cummings and his testimony yesterday 
evening in the Rules Committee. Though this bill isn't perfect, it can 
be improved and strengthened by a few relatively straightforward 
amendments, which, unfortunately, were shut down in the Rules Committee 
last night.
  The first amendment, which was blocked today, would have addressed 
the bill's constitutional concerns first raised by the Office of 
Personnel Management by revising the mandatory disciplinary procedures 
to allow superiors their constitutional rights to due process in 
responding to accusations of retaliation. It would have improved the 
bill and made it more likely to stand up in court to challenge.
  An amendment reaffirming the right to due process would have been 
something at least worth voting on, and, in fact, could have preserved 
the constitutionality of the core elements of this bill, ensuring that 
it stays in place to protect whistleblowers.
  Another amendment blocked under this rule would have addressed 
privacy concerns contained in the bill. Specifically, the amendment 
would have protected the privacy of a whistleblower who commits 
suicide, by requiring the permission of the whistleblower's next of kin 
before an agency can share information regarding the suicide.
  Again, it seems like a straightforward fix to protect the privacy of 
whistleblowers and their families. At the very least, even if Members 
of this body disagreed with it, why didn't we at least bring it forward 
for debate and a vote?
  Another amendment that was blocked today contained the text of Mr. 
Cummings' bill, H.R. 702, which was passed by the House of 
Representatives unanimously. As you know, this bill would expand 
protections for employees who face discrimination, and it solidifies 
our commitment to protecting whistleblowers and other employees from 
retaliation. It was a bipartisan bill. It passed the House unanimously. 
We simply should have allowed it under this bill to become part of a 
related effort.
  Now, I know that my colleagues on the other side will say: Oh, the 
Senate is slow. They won't take up this bill on time. It is better for 
us to pass something now than have to wait for their approval.
  But it only takes 10 minutes usually to debate an amendment. So we 
could have allowed three amendments and spent no more than 30 minutes 
debating them and still reported this bill out expeditiously.
  Now, I happen to think that, while there are many on the other side 
of the aisle who would agree the House needs to return to regular 
order, it is time that Members actually started by voting according to 
what they are saying. By voting ``no'' on this rule and rejecting it, 
we can send the message to House leadership that we want an open, 
regular order process.
  Bills should come out of committee through markups. Republicans and 
Democrats should have the opportunity to amend bills on the floor of 
the House. Perhaps if we did that more often, the Senate would not 
simply cast aside many of the bills that have passed the House, knowing 
that they went through the process of deliberate consideration by our 
body, rather than a bill that appears fully formed where Members of 
this body simply get an up-or-down vote.
  This bill will enjoy bipartisan support when it passes the House 
later today, as it should, but it also begs the question of: Why are we 
spending valuable time debating a noncontroversial bill, especially if 
it is considered under a closed rule? Why not have simply put it up on 
suspension in the first place?
  To say things bluntly, we are actually running out of time this year. 
By my count, we only have 30 legislative days left in the first half of 
the 115th Congress, yet we are faced with so many important issues we 
need to move forward on.
  Nine million children face losing their health insurance because 
Congress has not yet acted to reauthorize CHIP. Almost 1 million young, 
aspiring Americans have no idea what their lives will look like 6 
months from now because of the President's decision to end DACA and 
Congress's continued inability to make it permanent law. The citizens 
of Puerto Rico, American citizens, still have not been granted a 
Federal aid package and are suffering from a lack of food, clean water, 
healthcare supplies, and electricity, jeopardizing many of their lives 
today.
  Yet here we are debating a bill without even allowing an amendment 
process that we could have passed under suspension vote yesterday so we 
could move on to CHIP, to Puerto Rico, to DACA today, rather than spend 
one of our 30 remaining days of business this year avoiding the topics 
that the American people want us to take on.
  Despite the important goals we have left to accomplish this year, it 
is misleading to assume that regular order isn't feasible. We have all 
seen how fast Congress can work when we are pushed right up to the 
edge. It is past time that we show that same urgency and commitment in 
considering legislation under regular order, even if it means we have 
to stay here on Thursdays and Fridays, even if it means we are working 
until 8 or 9 or 10 or midnight. The American people deserve no less.
  Make no mistake, the Whistleblower Protection Act is an important 
piece of legislation that will help protect whistleblowers and hold 
Federal agencies accountable, but if we are going to devote this much 
time to legislation that protects employees, let's take it a step 
further and talk about expanding worker protections for an even greater 
number of Americans.
  For example, my legislation, the Giving Workers a Fair Shot Act--
which I introduced last session and this session, and has yet to 
receive a hearing, no less a markup in the Education and Workforce 
Committee--would protect workers from wage theft, prevent taxpayer 
funds from going towards union busting, and establish first contract 
arbitration to prevent companies from dragging on labor negotiations 
unnecessarily to the detriment of workers.

                              {time}  1300

  We don't have time to waste. If we are going to consider an issue, 
let's dive in. We can protect whistleblowers from retaliation and 
strengthen the rights of workers at the same time. Given the minimal 
amount of time we have left to work with, 30 days this year, we have an 
obligation to do both.
  By the way, the fact that we only work 30 more days this year here in 
the United States Congress probably comes as a great surprise to many 
hardworking Americans who are accustomed to working 5 days a week. We 
have the rest of the month of October, November, December. Well, many 
Americans might get Christmas Day off, perhaps even Christmas Eve, but 
I don't think Americans realize that Congress is only going to work 30 
days out of the next 78 days. That is less than a half-time job, Mr. 
Speaker.
  I think the American people deserve more from us in this body, 
especially when so many issues like CHIP, like DACA, like Puerto Rico, 
and many others have gone unanswered by us in this body, the House of 
Representatives, or by colleagues across the way in the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).
  Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this rule 
and the underlying bill, S. 585, the Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick 
Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017.
  This bill strengthens penalties against those who retaliate against 
whistleblowers, adds protections and opportunities for whistleblowers 
placed on probation, and ensures Federal employees have a greater 
knowledge of whistleblower rights and protections.
  Specifically, this bill forbids a supervisor from taking or 
threatening to take action against an employee because they refuse to 
obey an order that would violate a law, rule, or regulation.

[[Page 15787]]

  I want to thank Senator Ron Johnson for his persistence in pushing 
this legislation even after the former Senator Harry Reid shut it down 
last Congress.
  What a poignant and meaningful gesture to name this bill after Dr. 
Chris Kirkpatrick, a VA employee who took his own life after being 
subjected to cruel retaliation from VA officials. I hope it puts in 
perspective the immense emotional burdens that victims of retaliation 
face.
  Mr. Speaker, this issue is personal for me. Unfortunately, I have 
seen exactly what retaliation against whistleblowers looks like, how 
easy it is to get away with it, and why we have to put a stop to it.
  Last week marked the 3-year anniversary since the director of the 
central Alabama VA became the first senior manager in the country fired 
as a result of the wait-list scandal. That was a major step towards 
turning around one of the Nation's worst VA systems and restoring trust 
with the veteran population it serves.
  Mr. Speaker, I can say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it would 
have never happened without brave whistleblowers inside the VA telling 
me the truth.
  Two brave individuals in particular, Sheila Meuse and Rich Tremaine, 
told me the truth about major instances of misconduct and mismanagement 
when no one else would. Seeing no other way to achieve change, they 
finally told their story to the media, at great personal risk to their 
careers.
  The stories that emerged from these exposures were almost 
unbelievable:
  More than 1,000 X-ray cancer screenings were lost and unread for 
years, even though some showed malignancies. When alerted to the 
problem, top administrators tried to cover this up.
  A pulmonologist manipulated more than 1,200 patient records but, even 
after being caught twice, was still given a satisfactory review.
  A central Alabama VA employee took a recovering veteran to a crack 
house and bought him drugs and prostitutes in order to extort his VA 
payments. Even when caught, this employee was not fired until a year 
and a half later when we exposed it in the newspaper.
  Mr. Speaker, this behavior is egregious, and, trust me, there is a 
lot more where it came from.
  However, had it not been for the courage of those on the inside to 
expose this wrongdoing, the world might not have ever known. To me and 
to the veterans whose lives they might have saved, they are heroes. But 
that is not how they were treated by VA officials. They were treated as 
enemies and outcasts, all because they tried to do the right thing.
  Rich Tremaine actually testified here before the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee, detailing the systemic way that some VA officials attempted 
to silence and marginalize him. The effects of him blowing the whistle 
on wrongdoing follow him to this day, far away from Montgomery, 
Alabama.
  Mr. Speaker, my experience working to clean house at the VA taught me 
a fascinating and frustrating truth about the culture in some parts of 
the VA. The system routinely goes out of its way to protect those who 
don't do their jobs or even harm veterans, but then goes after those 
who try to stop that misbehavior.
  For years, because of poorly written civil service laws and powerful 
unions, too many VA employees got the message that misconduct, 
negligence, and poor performance would be tolerated, but blowing the 
whistle on that kind of behavior would not be.
  I have seen it too many times. All too frequently, VA employees 
caught for doing the wrong thing are reprimanded, shuffled around to 
different jobs, or allowed to quietly retire, but those who try to do 
the right thing by our veterans by shining a light on misconduct are 
persecuted, intimidated, or worse.
  While I am proud of the work that we have done for the last 3 years 
to put an end to this unacceptable culture at the VA, there is much 
work left to be done.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a reason why Federal employees face retaliation 
for speaking up. It is not because people are just naturally mean or 
because there is some kind of misunderstanding. The reason 
whistleblowers face systemic retaliation is because it works. When a 
brave whistleblower faces intimidation or persecution for their action, 
every other employee sees it, and they know what will happen to them if 
they tell the truth. It has a powerful, chilling effect--one we saw 
firsthand in Montgomery.
  They retaliate because it works. That is just wrong, and it is time 
to punish those who do it with harsher penalties. We need to rethink 
our civil service laws in this country to make sure public servants 
live up to the honor and responsibility of the public trust, and I 
believe that this bill is another positive step in that direction. Mr. 
Speaker, that is why I urge my colleagues to bring it to the floor by 
supporting this rule.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, President Trump has been relentless on his attack on 
immigrant Americans, generally, and, in particular, DREAMers since he 
took office. Yet 82 percent of American voters, including about 70 
percent of Republicans, believe DREAMers should be allowed to stay in 
the U.S. and apply for citizenship. Yet President Trump has continued 
to turn his back on these innocent young people.
  Mr. Speaker, here is our chance to rectify President Trump's decision 
and restore the American people's faith in us and our faith in our 
aspiring Americans.
  When we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to 
the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan, 
bicameral legislation would help thousands of young people who are de 
facto Americans in every way except for on paper.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question today, we 
can bring forward the Dream Act, which I am confident would pass on the 
floor of the House probably by a good margin.
  What the Dream Act does is it allows young people who grew up in our 
country, who know no other country, a pathway to become citizens. They 
have gone to our schools, they have been on the football team or 
cheerleaders like your own kids or grandkids, Mr. Speaker.
  They are able to work legally in our country because of the deferred 
action program, which is scheduled by President Trump to be canceled in 
4\1/2\ months. We need to act now to give these young people the 
certainty they need to live their lives as Americans, the only country 
they know, and the only country that they are loyal to.
  We simply don't have time to waste. We need to give these young de 
facto Americans the certainty they need to continue with their lives to 
be able to contribute to our country, join our military, pay taxes, and 
all of the other responsibilities that Americans have.
  Of course, Mr. Speaker, protecting whistleblowers is important. It is 
critical to ensure that our democracy functions honestly and with 
accountability and government is truly working in the best interests of 
the people that it serves. But we could get there a better way, by 
having an open process that allows Democrats and Republicans to suggest 
further improvements to whistleblower protection rather than having a 
bill that was never marked up in committee, that simply appeared fully 
formed for the full House to consider without the opportunity for 
Democrats or Republicans to make it any better.
  The Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act will 
strengthen the rights of whistleblowers and reaffirm their value and 
importance to our country. But once again, this bill should have gone 
through a regular process that allowed us to amend it.
  The fact that this bill passed the Senate with bipartisan support

[[Page 15788]]

shouldn't stop us from making changes in this body, the House of 
Representatives, to improve the bill and make it work even better. We 
have an obligation to our constituents to thoughtfully consider every 
piece of legislation in front of us and to amend where we see fit.
  As we move forward on addressing the pressing issues in front of us, 
such as finding a path forward on deferred action, which we will 
present if we can defeat the previous question, reauthorizing CHIP, or 
making improvements in our healthcare system, let's do it through a 
regular process that allows Democrats and Republicans, the 435 of us 
who serve here, to bring forward our ideas, not just the ideas of 
leadership in making the country a better place.
  We have good, smart, deliberate Members on both sides of the aisle 
who want to work, want to legislate. It is ridiculous that we only have 
30 days out of the next 78 in which Congress will even be working, and 
I suspect for most of the 30 days, like today, Democrats and 
Republicans won't even be able to offer their ideas and have them 
considered. The American people deserve better.
  We as an institution, as the United States Congress, can do better, 
and we can begin by defeating the previous question and defeating the 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's concern, especially for the 
piece of legislation that is before us. I think it is a step forward 
and things that we should be doing and things that are the oversight 
role of this Congress, especially when we are dealing with the issue of 
whistleblowers and the value that they bring, and also the culture that 
seems to have pervaded.
  I so appreciate the gentlewoman from Alabama and her stories. We, in 
Georgia, have had similar issues. We had that in the Augusta medical 
center. We also had it in others.
  I think the issue here today, though, and I want to be very clear, 
Mr. Speaker, many times when we come to the floor, there is this 
discussion and it gets circulated that we are actually against all 
Federal employees, or that every Federal employee is bad, and that none 
of the Federal employees are worth their payment or whatever. That is 
just not true. The work of the vast majority of the VA employees, the 
workers of the vast majority of the agencies, although we may have 
philosophical differences on how big some of our agencies should be or 
if they should be in the role of Federal Government, at the end of the 
day, the value and the worth of the Federal employee is never 
questioned, at least by this Member.
  But when we find bad actors, when we find bad policies, when we find 
bad procedures, when we find things that inherently are wrong and they 
are kept wrong, as the gentlewoman from Alabama so well pointed out, 
that when the culture becomes protecting the bad and punishing the 
good, then we have an issue that has developed far beyond the scope of 
what it should be.
  These are some of the things that we are discussing today, and I 
think it is worth the time on this floor, it is worth the time on the 
Senate floor, as they have already passed this bill, and I think the 
concerns raised are the discussion of which has been addressed in this.
  I think what we look at today is today's bill is a necessary step, 
but I believe toward integrity, Mr. Speaker. My colleagues and I owe it 
to our neighbors and to Federal employees who serve to increase 
whistleblower protections. We need a clear path for public servants to 
serve Americans with the knowledge that we will honor their good 
character and courage. They should not feel alone in their resolve to 
improve the VA or any other agency. Yet too often, we have seen the 
current law leave them at the mercy of bad actors. We must strengthen 
the existing statutes to address the litany of retaliations aimed at 
whistleblowers.
  The bill today will deter agency officials from targeting 
whistleblowers for shining a light on dark flaws in their organization. 
Bad actors are even today evading discipline while whistleblowers who 
strive to do what is right too often endure punishment for their brave 
actions.
  The whistleblowers are on the losing end of a system that often 
favors mischief, which means that the American public also suffers. 
This bill will bring relief to Federal truth tellers and the everyday 
Americans who depend on their services.
  We best serve the American people by protecting whistleblowers, 
addressing their concerns properly, and investigating their claims with 
transparency.

                              {time}  1315

  The Federal Government exists to protect its citizens by holding 
wrongdoers accountable. It is designed to support those who work to 
root out wrongs in the system.
  The underlying legislation brings us closer to a Federal system run 
by the people and for the benefit of the people, not for the benefit of 
a few bad actors who exploit its structure. It delivers justice to both 
victims and bad actors, protects whistleblowers who act in good faith, 
and ensures that the American Government better serves the American 
people.
  At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, is that not what it is all about? 
At the end of the day, is it not what we as a Congress and as a House 
and a Senate should be about, and that is assuring that the people who 
we are elected to serve are best served by their own tax dollars 
through the agencies and processes of the Federal Government to provide 
basic services to our veterans, who serve in our other agencies, who, 
at the core of this, actually comes down--to me, this is a protection 
of whistleblowers. But in a bigger role, it is actually a protection of 
the currency that is the best that can be used in our Federal agencies, 
and that is the trust of the American people.
  When we are in the discussion of trust in the American people, right 
now, many times, if you look around, the Federal Government may not be 
in that trusted role because many times they see the actions of the bad 
actors as opposed to many times the very shining lights of the good 
actors. Those good actors who are willing to participate and to step 
forward and to be a part of the solution and not a part of the problem 
need that protection.
  We cannot continue to perpetuate and turn a blind eye when this is so 
relevant in our government. When we do this, we stand for those whom we 
serve. We stand, not only for the districts in which we are elected, 
but the American people who have taken to this institution to say: I 
expect my trust to be exemplified in the employees of the Federal 
Government and through the stewardship of their tax dollars.
  The question for us today is not do we continue to protect the system 
that is broken, but the question for us is to vote ``yes'' on this 
previous question, to move this rule, and to move this bill, because 
this is saying we value that integrity currency, we value those who are 
willing to step forward at risk of themselves, in courage, to say: This 
is wrong, we need to fix it, and let the chips fall where they may.
  We protect the right. We punish the wrong. That is what this bill 
does.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

            An Amendment to H. Res. 562 Offered by Mr. Polis

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     3440) to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment 
     of status of certain individuals who are long-term United 
     States residents and who entered the United States as 
     children and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. All points of order against

[[Page 15789]]

     provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of 
     the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution 
     on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House 
     shall, immediately after the third daily order of business 
     under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the 
     Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3440.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________