Providing for consideration of 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; 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. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. As my colleague noted, Dr. Kirkpatrick was a psychologist at a VA medical center in Wisconsin. In 2009, he was fired from his job after allegedly questioning the overmedication of his patients, particularly related to opioids. Tragically, that very same day, Dr. Kirkpatrick committed suicide.

I think we can all agree that protecting whistleblowers helps to ensure that waste, fraud, and abuse in our government does not go unnoticed or ignored.

It is our responsibility to empower and encourage whistleblowers to come forward and speak out when something isn't right. No one should have to live in fear of retaliation for bringing the truth to light. No one should fear losing their job or career or their life simply for following the rules.

The Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act increases accountability by enacting mandatory punishments for any manager or superior at an agency who has been found to have retaliated against a whistleblower.

The bill also contains VA-specific reforms to better protect the privacy of medical records. Employee medical records would now be prohibited from being accessed in the case of potential retaliation cases, which adds an additional level of accountability for supervisors; and protecting the whistleblower from attacks and threats based on their personal medical history, which would be completely inappropriate.

Mr. Speaker, while there are strong and necessary reforms in this bill, I want to make sure that you know that legislation can always be improved through the amendment process or at least through conducting a hearing and markup of a bill.

Sadly, but unsurprisingly in this Congress, this bill didn't have a markup in committee; didn't have a hearing; is considered under a closed rule, where amendments that were brought forward aren't even allowed to be debated on the House floor.

This might be a surprise even to the chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, who himself requested a structured rule that allowed for debate on amendments.

Much of my statement today echoes the sentiment of Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Member Cummings and his testimony yesterday evening in the Rules Committee. Though this bill isn't perfect, it can be improved and strengthened by a few relatively straightforward amendments, which, unfortunately, were shut

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.

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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question today, we can bring forward the Dream Act, which I am confident would pass on the floor of the House probably by a good margin.

What the Dream Act does is it allows young people who grew up in our country, who know no other country, a pathway to become citizens. They have gone to our schools, they have been on the football team or cheerleaders like your own kids or grandkids, Mr. Speaker.

They are able to work legally in our country because of the deferred action program, which is scheduled by President Trump to be canceled in 4\1/2\ months. We need to act now to give these young people the certainty they need to live their lives as Americans, the only country they know, and the only country that they are loyal to.

We simply don't have time to waste. We need to give these young de facto Americans the certainty they need to continue with their lives to be able to contribute to our country, join our military, pay taxes, and all of the other responsibilities that Americans have.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, protecting whistleblowers is important. It is critical to ensure that our democracy functions honestly and with accountability and government is truly working in the best interests of the people that it serves. But we could get there a better way, by having an open process that allows Democrats and Republicans to suggest further improvements to whistleblower protection rather than having a bill that was never marked up in committee, that simply appeared fully formed for the full House to consider without the opportunity for Democrats or Republicans to make it any better.

The Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act will strengthen the rights of whistleblowers and reaffirm their value and importance to our country. But once again, this bill should have gone through a regular process that allowed us to amend it.

The fact that this bill passed the Senate with bipartisan support shouldn't stop us from making changes in this body, the House of Representatives, to improve the bill and make it work even better. We have an obligation to our constituents to thoughtfully consider every piece of legislation in front of us and to amend where we see fit.

As we move forward on addressing the pressing issues in front of us, such as finding a path forward on deferred action, which we will present if we can defeat the previous question, reauthorizing CHIP, or making improvements in our healthcare system, let's do it through a regular process that allows Democrats and Republicans, the 435 of us who serve here, to bring forward our ideas, not just the ideas of leadership in making the country a better place.

We have good, smart, deliberate Members on both sides of the aisle who want to work, want to legislate. It is ridiculous that we only have 30 days out of the next 78 in which Congress

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. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 562 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. 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.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the committee with oversight jurisdiction over Federal workers and agencies, I am one of the staunchest supporters of whistleblower protections in the Congress. I strongly support enhancing protections for the brave men and women who put their careers on the line to speak out against waste, fraud, and abuse.

I fully support the intent of S. 585 to protect whistleblowers who face investigations in retaliation for their disclosures. But I am disappointed that the Republican leadership chose not to consider this measure under regular order.

House Republicans rushed this legislation directly to the floor, bypassing any consideration by the Oversight Committee or the Veterans' Affairs Committee, which have jurisdiction over the bill. It is especially disappointing that my committee was not given the opportunity to address constitutional and privacy concerns raised by the Trump administration's Office of Personnel Management about the bill. That is what I said: the Trump administration's concerns about it.

It is even more disheartening that the Rules Committee issued a closed rule for this bill. They blocked all three germane amendments that I submitted, including an amendment to fix the problems identified by the OPM.

The measure before us today would change the procedures for disciplining Federal supervisors who retaliate against employees who blow the whistle. It would require agency heads to impose suspensions of at least 3 days for a first offense, and termination for a second offense whenever an agency head, administrative law judge, the Merit Systems Protection Board, a Federal judge, or an inspector general finds that a supervisor retaliated against an employee who blew the whistle.

It also would reduce the length of the notice requirement for proposed disciplinary action from 30 days to 14 days. It would eliminate the option to hold a hearing if a supervisor contests a proposed disciplinary action. It would change the current burden of proof for demonstrating retaliation from a preponderance of the evidence to require agency heads to impose disciplinary action in any case in which a supervisor does not furnish evidence or if the head of the agency determines that such evidence is not sufficient to reverse the proposed action.

The bill also would require an agency head, when an employee may have committed suicide, to refer any information to the Office of Special Counsel indicating that the employee had blown the whistle and that the agency took personnel action against the employee.

The OPM has questioned whether some of the provisions in the bill would withstand constitutional scrutiny if challenged in court, and I agree with the OPM on that issue.

For example, the OPM explained that the bill's requirement to propose minimum penalties of 3 days' suspension for the first offense and termination for second offenses could violate due process protections. These protections require agencies to notify employees of factors they will consider regarding proposed penalties for findings of wrongdoing and to provide employees with meaningful opportunities to respond. The United States Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Courts have ruled that Federal employees are entitled to these protections. After all, they are Americans.

But according to the OPM, the bill would eliminate agency consideration of many of the 12 factors that were set force by the Merit Systems Protection Board in Douglas v. Veterans Administration in 1981. The Board uses these so-called Douglas factors to assess the reasonableness of penalties, and agency officials who propose or decide adverse actions against employees must concurrently consider these factors.

Concerns have also been raised that by reducing the current requirement for 30 days' notice of adverse action to 14 days, lowering the existing burden of proof, and eliminating the option for hearings, the bill could be challenged on the basis that it does not give supervisors sufficiently meaningful opportunities to respond to accusations of retaliation.

In addition, although the intent of the bill is to enhance protections for whistleblowers, there is some concern that it would be misused to harm whistleblowers. For example, an agency head could utilize the bill's abbreviated disciplinary processes in bad faith to retaliate against supervisors who blow the whistle on high-level waste, fraud, or abuse.

Lastly, the provision requiring agency heads to refer information to the Office of Special Counsel regarding employees who may have committed suicide raises important privacy questions. The bill does not include any provision requiring agencies to obtain permission from family members before sharing information about an employee's death. It is unfortunate that the House has failed to take the opportunity to fix these flaws in this measure.

The second amendment that I presented would have protected the privacy interests of employees who commit suicide by requiring written permission from their next of kin before agency heads disclose the details about the death.

And another amendment that I submitted would have made corrections in the underlying bill to ensure that managers who violate whistleblower rights will be held accountable, while safeguarding due process rights.

Finally, the third amendment was the text of my bipartisan bill, H.R. 702, the Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination Act of 2017, which passed the House by a voice vote under suspension of the rules earlier in this Congress, and also passed the House by a vote of 403-0 in the last Congress.

This amendment would have expanded the protections for employees who suffer retaliation and discrimination. It also would have prohibited the use of nondisclosure agreements to prevent employees from disclosing waste, fraud, or abuse to Congress, to the Office of Special Counsel, and inspector generals.

I expect the bill, as it now stands, to engender substantial litigation that may have to be addressed by the courts. It would, indeed, be unfortunate if that litigation resulted in overturning disciplinary action against an employee who retaliated against a whistleblower, when we could have acted today to address the constitutional concerns.

As I said before the Rules Committee, sometimes I think we can get so caught up in our partisan battles, that even when we come with good suggestions as to how to make a piece of legislation better and more effective and certainly come within the bounds

of the Constitution, we are blinded by what we see; and that is this battle between Republicans and Democrats, Mr. Speaker, and we don't come up, sometimes with the very best product.

But even with all that, because I am so concerned about whistleblowers, I plan to vote for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and one who has been a staunch supporter of whistleblowers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As I close, I take the opportunity to reiterate that I strongly support the objectives of S. 585. If there is anything that we agree on in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, it is that we must protect whistleblowers.

Many of the investigations that we have conducted have been as a result of somebody who saw something and said something. Like Dr. Kirkpatrick, I am sure, in most of those instances, it was very difficult for them because they, on the one hand, wanted to improve a situation or address a problem, but at the same time, they knew that it was possible that they, themselves, might be harmed and their families might be harmed. So they make a very, very difficult choice, a very difficult choice.

I am horrified that Dr. Kirkpatrick was so agonized by the treatment he endured at the Veterans Administration that he saw no options for himself. In other words, Mr. Speaker, he saw no way out. I worry that there are civil servants today who are enduring that same agony.

But we say to them that we will protect you with all we have got, and that is why I appreciate Senator Johnson's work on S. 585, and I share his commitment to protecting whistleblowers. For that reason, as I said earlier, I will vote in favor of this legislation.

That said, I wish that the Republican leadership had taken the opportunities that my amendments provided to improve this bill. These issues of equal protection are nothing to play with because we begin to chip away and chip away and chip away at employees' rights, and the next you know, those rights begin to disappear. Those are the kind of rights that are a part and the fabric of this thing we call a democracy. I think we have to be very, very, very careful. It is going to be interesting to see what the courts have to say about this legislation.

My amendments would have addressed the constitutional concerns raised by OPM--and I emphasize OPM. This was not the Obama OPM. This was the Trump OPM.

My amendments would also have protected the privacy of employees who take their own lives.

My amendments would have added to the underlying bill additional protections for employees who suffer retaliation or discrimination, protections that the House has already approved.

I believe this is a missed opportunity and it is sad. I truly hope that future litigation does not undo the advances that this bill seeks to make in the protections provided for the courageous men and women willing to blow the whistle on wrongdoing. In this day and age, we need the whistleblower more now than we have ever needed them.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to support this bill to protect some of the boldest, most courageous people in our Nation, the whistleblowers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill, S. 585, the Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017.

This bill strengthens penalties against those who retaliate against whistleblowers, adds protections and opportunities for whistleblowers placed on probation, and ensures Federal employees have a greater knowledge of whistleblower rights and protections.

Specifically, this bill forbids a supervisor from taking or threatening to take action against an employee because they refuse to obey an order that would violate a law, rule, or regulation.

I want to thank Senator Ron Johnson for his persistence in pushing this legislation even after the former Senator Harry Reid shut it down last Congress.

What a poignant and meaningful gesture to name this bill after Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick, a VA employee who took his own life after being subjected to cruel retaliation from VA officials. I hope it puts in perspective the immense emotional burdens that victims of retaliation face.

Mr. Speaker, this issue is personal for me. Unfortunately, I have seen exactly what retaliation against whistleblowers looks like, how easy it is to get

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. Speaker, I would agree with many of the gentleman's concerns and comments regarding the lack of a real legislative process here. The bill could be better. But nonetheless, like the ranking member, I will be supporting the legislation despite those concerns because it is absolutely urgent.

I have a totally dysfunctional management at the VA hospital in Roseburg, Oregon. A number of years ago, a whistleblower came to me and said that substandard care was being provided. We asked the Office of Inspector General to look into it. They whitewashed it, and then it came out in the Senate testimony that the Office of Special Counsel had found that this doctor had been penalized as a whistleblower because he was pointing to substandard care.

I asked for another investigation and ultimately found, yes, indeed, substandard care was being provided by the head surgeon. He was suspended from his duties but is still the head surgeon. Now he has run another very accomplished doctor, under very dubious circumstances, out of my Eugene clinic. This is a surgeon who served 29 years, honorably, in the military, 10 years at my regional hospital with rave reviews, and, after 30 days at my new VA clinic in Eugene, was dismissed in the most unusual way with no allegations put forward.

Mr. Speaker, again, it seems that we are having issues here when the quality is substandard that this one person is able to basically just get rid of the folks who are raising concerns about the care of veterans. Again, this shouldn't happen.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the record two letters regarding the dismissed doctor.

October 17, 2017.

Dear Mr. DeFazio: I am a contracted physician in the

emergency department at the Roseburg VA. I have been working

at this facility since 2010. During that time I have truly

enjoyed providing care for the veterans. However, I have

significant concerns regarding the administration and

inefficiencies in healthcare, in the VA system.

Unfortunately, it seems that advancement of careers and the

fluffing of numbers supersede patient care.

Despite the build up of these concerns over the years, I

have recently became aware of an action that compels me to go

beyond the normal chain of command. One of the surgeons

working at the Eugene campus--still under the Roseburg

administration--was fired recently under very concerning

circumstances.

Dr. Scott Russi was working at the Eugene VA for less than

1 month when he was pushed out and fired. I know Dr. Russi

from the private sector. In addition to working at the

Roseburg VA, I have worked for the last ten years at Sacred

Heart RiverBend--a trauma, stroke, and cardiac center--and

one of the largest hospitals in the state. I worked alongside

Dr. Russi for many years at RiverBend and I found him to be

not only extremely competent and hardworking, but always very

professional. I was sad to see him leave RiverBend, but I was

encouraged that he would be working in the VA system as I

felt he would significantly improve the quality of care for

the veterans.

I find it very disheartening that a group of administrative

physicians, who rarely practice medicine, are able to strike

down such a promising figure simply because they seem to have

felt threatened by him. I know there are many people who are

upset by this firing and who have concerns about this system

in general. I have tried many times to discuss my concerns

with people in the administration and have been met with, at

best, excuses and, at worst, threats. It is clear to me as

somewhat of an outsider and observer (as I am not actually a

VA employee) that physicians who are dedicated to patient

care and most skilled are threatening to the administration.

These physicians are often ostracized and pushed out--and

when they can't be pushed out, false rumors are spread about

them. I have considered stepping away from the VA system due

to these continuing frustrations. It is disheartening to see

these veterans treated with such carelessness. However, I

feel that someone has to stay and actually care for them,

but, if I stay, I also want to try to make the system a

better place for them. For many, this is their only health

care.

I wish this was as exaggerated as it may sound, but

unfortunately this is only a small piece of a huge problem.

If you are interested in more details, I am more than happy

to discuss this further. In general, I keep my head down and

do what I think is best, but this presents itself as a moment

when speaking out is necessary and right.

Thank you,

Charlotte Ransom, MD.

Mr. Speaker, since this has come out, I have had dozens of calls from nurses and doctors and other workers in the VA system in my region--in Eugene, Springfield, and southern Oregon, down to Roseburg, at those two facilities--because of this mismanagement. They say that the care is not up to standards, just like this particular physician was not providing modern care when he did colonoscopies.

We need--vitally need--this legislation and the strongest protection for whistleblowers. This isn't about protecting bad managers. It is about promoting qualified and keeping qualified employees, which we are having a hard time doing in my area. It is about providing the best care to our veterans, and that isn't going to happen if people can be intimidated or just shown the door when they raise concerns.