Transcripts For CSPAN3 Hearing Focuses On Whistleblower Protections 20170208

Experts testify before a House Oversight and government reform subcommittee on whistleblower protections. Witnesses discuss the benefits and shortcomings of a 2012 whistleblower law. This is about an hour and a half. The subcommittee on Government Operations will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. I will defer at this time to the Ranking Member of the subcommittee for an Opening Statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I know mr. Meadows will be here shortly. Federal employees who blow the whistle on waste, fraud and abuse are in the front lines in the effort to ensure that our government functions efficiently and effectively. This committee has a long history of strong bipartisan support for those whistleblowers and i want to thank the chairman, mr. Immediameadows fo holding todays hearing. Whistleblower protection is rooted in Civil Service protections. Due process and meritbased hiring and promotion free of discrimination, retaliation and political influence form the bedrock of the very whistleblower protections we are concerned about and have been for a long time on this commit even subcommittee. Five years ago, the bipartisan whistleblower protection enhancement act of 2012 significantly strengthened the rights of federal employees who disclose waste, fraud and abuse. This legislation marks substantial progress but as we discovered, gaps remain and we must continue to work to protect all federal employees who disclose wrongdoing. I look forward to hearing from our Witnesses Today about challenges to protecting those whistleblowers under current law such as vacancies at the mspb, loopholes for sensitive positions, retaliatory investigations as well as proposals to address those challenges. In fact, tomorrow, this committee, the oversight and government reform committee, will be marking up a bill that i cosponsored, hr 657, to follow the rules act. Last year our federal court ruled that an employee who refused to obey an order is protected from retaliation only if that order violates a statute which was never the intent of the law. This bill clarifies that the whistleblower protection act as originally intended protkts employees who refuse to violate a rule or regulation. It need not be a statute. Legislative changes will not be enough. Congress must provide inspectors general and the office of special counsel with the resources they need to investigate and enforce whistleblower protections under the law. For example, we have heard reports of egregious whistleblower retaliation at tsa. Osc has already taken action in some of those cases but there is a backlog. Without Additional Resources, these whistleblowers wont be protected. In fact, one hears descriptions at tsa that sound like the wild west. And a lot of cleanup has to occur there not only with whistleblowers but Performance Measurements and the like. Finally, we cant ignore the committ committees oversight responsibility. I was alarmed to hear news reports days after continthe inauguration that certain agencies had issued gag orders on certain Employee Communications. One memo, issued by the acting secretary of the department of health and Human Services on the very first day in office of the new president states, i quote, no correspondence to Public Officials, that is members of congress, governors and the like, unless specifically authorized by me or my designee shall be sent between now and february 3rd. That language which ostensibly prevents an employee from speaking with members of congress on his own appears to violate, however, a number of federal laws including the whistleblower protection enhancement act itself. It certainly sends a chilling message to our federal employees. Thats why i plan to send a letter to agency heads asking them what steps theyre taking to ensure that their communications to employees comply with the law. I ask my colleagues across the aisle to join in these oversight measures. Its my hope that moving forward, we can work in a bipartisan manner as we always have on this subject. We must assure that Civil Service and due process protections, the bedrock of the whistleblower protection enhancement act, remain in place and are vigorously enforced. We must provide diligent oversight to verify that agencies in this administration are implementing the protections required under the law. With that, i yield back. Welcome, mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman from virginia and the gentleman from florida for gaveling us in. I certainly thank each of you. My apologies for being tardy. The chair notes the presence of our colleagues from the full committee of oversight and government reform. We appreciate your interest in this topic and welcome your participation today. With that, i ask unanimous consent that all members of the committee on oversight and government reform be allowed to fully participate. Hearing no objection, so ordered. Im going to go ahead in the interest of time and skip my Opening Statement and actually go with recognizing each of you and lets hear from you on that. Dont worry, from chairman. I spoke for both of us. Theres no doubt about that. Knowing that we are attached at the hip. So we will hold the record open for five legislative days for any member who would like to submit a written statement. Mr. Chairman, could i ask just a quick unanimous consent request . I have a statement from National Treasury employees union for the record. I ask unanimous consent to be entered in the record. Without objection. So ordered. Thank you, my friend. Im pleased to welcome mr. Robert storch, Deputy Inspector general at the u. S. Department of justice. Welcome. Mr. Eric bachman, deputy special counsel for litigation and Legal Affairs at the u. S. Office of special counsel. Welcome. Mr. Thomas devine, legal director at the Government Accountability project and Miss Elizabeth hempowicz, policy counsel at the project on government oversight. Welcome to you all. Pursuant to Committee Rules we ask that all witnesses be sworn in before they testify. If you will please rise and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are bye to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth . Please let the record reflect all witnesses answered in the affirmative. In order to allow time for discussion, we would appreciate if you limit your testimony to five minutes. Mr. Storch, before i come to you, the chair recognizes the Ranking Member from the full committee, the gentleman from maryland, mr. Cummings, for an Opening Statement. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I really appreciate your indulgence. I want to thank chairman meadows and Ranking Member connelly for this hearing today. Whistleblower protections are built on the foundation of our Civil Service system and its due process protections. I look forward to the testimony today on how we can continue to strengthen whistleblower laws to ensure that all federal employees who blow the whistle are protected. The topic of todays hearing is the whistleblower protection enhancement act of 2012 and it could not be a more timely subject. I was an original cosponsor of this bill which significantly expanded the protections available to government workers who risked their jobs to disclose wrongdoing, and we have had a number of them to come before us over my 21 years in this committee. Unfortunately, it appears that the Trump Administration in its first week has already violated the whistleblower protection enhancement act. Just last week, only days after president trumps inauguration, we learned that federal agencies issued gag orders op federal Employee Communications including their communications with congress. For example, we have obtained one of these memos which was issued by the new acting secretary of the department of health and Human Services. This memo tries to prohibit federal employees from speaking to members of congress. Let me repeat that. The Trump Administration is trying to prohibit federal employees from speaking to members of congress. Something is absolutely wrong with that picture. On its face, this memo violates the whistleblower protection enhancement act because it does not include mandatory language that we in congress require to protect whistleblowers who want to report waste, fraud or abuse. We require and i quote, any disclosure policy, form or agreement, end of quote, to include a mandatory statement that it does not supersede the rights of employees, including specifically quote, communications with congress, end of quote. And we passed this unanimously. Now my understanding is that the Trump Administration first tried to deny that memo was sent to its employees. Then they reportedly sent out some kind of clarifying statement. But my understanding is that even the clarifying statement still failed to include the mandatory statement we required in the whistleblower protection enhancement act. Mr. Chairman, i ask that this committee, i ask this committee to seek and obtain all emails and other communications in the possession of anyone at hhs relating to this directive, its drafting, circulation and subsequent clarification, as well as any communications about prohibiting federal employees from speaking to congress. Will you join me in a letter to hhs and other agencies requesting those documents, mr. Chairman . Im just making a simple request, mr. Chairman. Would the gentleman from maryland repeat his request . Oh, sure. Sorry. I was otherwise engaged. Deer in the headlight look was bus i h because i had no idea what you requested. I didnt moean to catch you off guard. Mr. Chairman, you have been absolutely wonderful and a good bipartisan member and i really appreciate it. What i said, i asked the subcommittee to seek and obtain all the emails and other communications in the possession of anyone at hhs relating to a directive in the drafting, circulation and subsequent clarification as well as any communications about prohibiting federal employees from speaking to members of congress. I think that should be a nobrainer for most of us. The gentleman knows very well that regardless of who is in the white house, that the chairman believes that having open communication between members of the federal government and members of congress is something that should not be inhibited, and so certainly im open to following up and making sure that we get clarification and hopefully on this, making sure the message is loud and clear that an open and transparent government is not only something this Committee Supports but the administration supports as well. Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. Im almost finished, mr. Chairman. This is not the only action the Trump Administration has taken that could chill whistleblowers. In december, president trumps Transition Team asked for the names of employees at the department of energy who had worked on Climate Change initiatives. Another Transition Team request was made to the state department for information regarding staffing and positions related to gender equity and violence against women. Just two days ago, white house Spokesman Sean Spicer announced that state Department Employees who voice dissent regarding president trumps immigration order should quote, either get with the program or they can go. End of quote. To quote walter schaub, director of the office of government ethics, quote, tone from the top matters, end of quote. I fear the president s tone will discourage whistleblowers from reporting waste, fraud and abuse, exactly the opposite of what we hope to accomplish through the whistleblower protection enhancement act. Theres still time for this administration to change. In a letter i wrote with my colleague Ranking Member palone to white house counsel, we requested that the president take immediate action to rescind all policies on Employee Communications that do not comply with the whistleblower protection enhancement act. We also urged the president to issue an official statement making clear that all federal employees have the right to communicate with congress and will not be silenced or retaliated against for their disclosures. I urge the president to adopt these recommendations immediately and send a clear signal to federal employees that whistleblowers will be protected as this committee has made it clear on both sides of the aisle, we will protect whistleblowers to the nth degree. With that, mr. Chairman, i appreciate your indulgence and i yield back. I thank the gentleman. The chair is certainly committed to making sure that we have an open and transparent accountability and i think that that serves the american tax payer well regardless of party, regardless of any partisan outlook. So i look forward to working with not only the Ranking Member of the full committee but the Ranking Member of the subcommittee on that. With that, mr. Storch, i recognize you for five minutes. I apologize to some of your staff who was actually here earlier today. You are recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman, Ranking Member connelly and members of the subcommittee. Whistleblowers perform an Invaluable Service when they come forward with what they reasonably believe to be evidence of wrongdoing and they should never suffer reprisal for doing so. Thank you for inviting me to speak about the Important Role the officers of the inspectors general play under the wpea with regard to informing whistleblowers about their rights and protections. I have served as a whistleblower omb ombuds person since the program was established. In november of 2012, it was enacted requiring the creation of such positions in the offices of all president ially appointed Senate Confirmed igs and many designated federal entity igs have such programs as well. We are responsible under the act for educating Agency Employees about the prohibitions on retaliation for making protected disclosures and informing employees who have made or are contemplating making disclosures about their rights and remedies against retaliation. The doj, oig strongly supports reauthorization of this important provision. The oigs work in this area is entirely consistent with the importance of whistleblowers as reflected in the Inspector General act itself which specifically provides for oigs to receive and investigate complaints provided by Agency Employees and to protect their confidentiality and prohibits the taking of personnel actions against them for coming to us. Just as oigs are well placed within agencies, to detect and deter waste, fraud, abuse and misconduct, whistleblowers are very much at the front lines, direct witnesses to potential wrongdoing, and they play a Critical Role in bringing forward such information. Ensuring that whistleblowers are comfortable, informed and protected is therefore of central importance to the oigs core mission. We and many of our fellow oigs carry out our role under the wpea by creating and disseminating educational materials and conducting Training Programs. At dojoig we filmed an instructal video that is now required viewing for all doj managers and supervisors and Available Online for all employees. We also prepared informational flyers that have been posted in offices throughout the department with Contact Information for the oig and the office of special counsel, which plays a central role in addressing many cases of suspected reprisal. We have worked with the fbi and other components to develop particularized Training Programs for their work forces and in the case of the fbi, to address the specific Requirements Applicable to its employees including under the recently enacted fbi wpea. We and other oigs also prepared informational brochures for contractors, subcontractors and grantees and like many of our counterparts, created a robust page on our website with a range of information regarding whistleblower rights and protections. Shortly after the passage of the wpea, we worked through the council of the inspectors general to create a working group which meets quarterly to share information, discuss best practices and Current Issues and host speakers from within and outside government. Our colleagues from osc have been active participants providing their expertise and facilitating coordination and cooperation between osc and the oigs and representatives of many other leading groups including both gap and pogo have met with us as well. 78 the working group also has facilitated meetings with congressional members and staff to discuss these issues and we partnered with osc, osha and Congressional Staff in organizing last summers successful celebration here at the capitol of National Whistleblower appreciation day. As Congress Considers reauthorization of the ombuds provision, i would close by mentioning a couple of years that have surfaced in the working group. First, the work we do generally does not include much of what is often done by traditional ombudsman. Some of their activities might even be seen as inconsistent with our independent position as oigs. This may result in some confusion about our roles and i would be pleased to work with the committee to discuss possible ways to address this. Second, many of the working Group Discussions have fleekt reflected what we found at doj. Mainly, our educational activities and the underlying whistleblower reprisal investigations are resource intensive and our ability to do this along with our other responsibilities is impact bide the limitations on our available staffing and resources. Our work in this area is only expected to increase as whistleblower rights and protxs are expected to increase and more educational activities take place. Id be pleased to work with you and your staff on these issues. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today and id be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Thank you, so much. Mr. Bockman youre recognized for five minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon, chairman meadows, Ranking Member conley. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the u. S. Office of special counsel and our enforcement of the whistle employer protection enhancement act, the wpea. My testimony will discuss the key parts, how new safeguards and suggestions on how to make the law more effective. Osc san independent agency and one of our primary missions to protect employees from whistleblower retaliation. Since it was enhakted nearly five years ago the number of whistleblower retaliation has been increased by 15 and weve helped a Record Number of whistle blowers. Osc has increased the number of favorable outcomes by 150 , weve increased the disciplinary actions against retaliators by 117 and weve taken further steps to strengthen the whistleblower law through our briefs and outreach programs. These protections are important because whistle blowers are vital tool in routing out waste, fraud and abuse in the government and have helped save hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. We want to thank congress and this committee for its forceful, bipartisan support. In particular, we thank representative blum for his sponsorship of hr 69 to reauthorize osc which passed the house earlier this year. This committees enthusiastic backing has made our office far more effective in helping whistle blowers and we look forward to continue this productive relationship in the new congress and beyond. The wtpea is landmark legislation and it has helped whistleblower retaliation by filing friend of the court briefs. Bolt sterg gs the remedies that are available to whistleblowers who win their retaliation claims and granting whistleblower protections to all whistleblowers. For example, we used our new authority to file a brief with the Supreme Court in department of Homeland Security and in a 72 decision the Supreme Court agreed with our arguments on behalf of the whoishls and since 2012 have received an investigated about 23 from tsa employees which we would not have been able to investigate prior to the wpea. Another new element of the wpea is this antigag order provision which ensures that whistleblower protections supercede any agency nondisclosure agreements or policies. It requires that any nondisclosure agreement or policy include language that clearly states that the employee may still blow the whistle even if they sign the agreement or are subject to the policy. Osc has vigorously enforced this gag provision and weve obtained nearly three dozen corrective actions and issued specific guidance to agencies on this important topic. The wtea also contains two valuable provisions that are set to expire at the end of this year, the whistleblower protection om budsman program and the all circuit appellate review program. Osc strongly recommends that both of these programs be made permanent. Finally, although the wpea has undeniably strengthened protections, further enhancements should be considered. For example, the wpea sets a higher evidentiary burden for disclosures that are made in the normal course of duties. Congress intended this heightened burden to apply like to jobs like investigators and auditors where investigating reporting wrongdoing is an every day job function. But recent Court Decisions have applied this heightened burden to a much broader universe of jobs, jobs like teachers and purchasing agent and this risk making it hard for many federal employees to be able to prove their whistleblower retaliation claims. We recommend that congress clarify only to that small subset of federal workers who investigate and report wrongdoing as a core job function. We greatly appreciate the committees robust support for office. I thank you for the opportunity to testify. And im happy to answer your questions. Thank you, mr. Bockman. Mr. Divine. Thank you. This hearing is significant because action is essential to address newly emerging threats and loop holes that obstruct or circumvent the wpeas mandate and because 2017 would be the year of truth for Unfinished Business on the due process structure to enforce the laws right. If Congress Acts effectively, after 39 years whistle blowers will have legal rights in which they can rely, a genuine shield against retaliation. 2016 continue to pattern since the wpea passage. Over the last five years have been the best and worst of times for whistle blowers. My written testimony summarizes encouraging news about closing the loop holes, Supreme Court support for the law, the office of special counsels effective track record and unprecedented impact from whistle blowers in making a difference. To illinois straight the latter if Supreme Court oral arguments for air Marshal Robert mcclain who disclosures stopped tsa from going a wol we argued that mr. Mcclain act today better protect the nation. Justice scalia interjected and he was successful. Its no wonder that whistle blowers are receiving more respect than ever before. Unfortunately, its a sad truth that the office of special counsel of track record 5. 2 corrective action against retaliation reflects the best option that exists. As rule employee rights under the whistleblower protection act continue to be a mriage when people for primary causes. The first is Administrative Agency enforcement. Despite best efforts, special counsel has hafrmered that result in almost no litigation and excessive delays that unemployed whistle blowers cannot afford and that undermine the relevance of its decisions on current events. Special counsel can never be more than anecdotal source of justice that makes impressive points. To consistently achieve the x purpose, no remedial agency can substitute for due process. And unfortunately, whistle blowers are not getting it. Board members have been good faith responsible stewards of the act but the hearings are conducted by administrative judges who are openly hostile to the act ruling against whistle blowers from 95 to 98 of the decisions when you combine that with osc 5 corrective action rate, whistle blowers do not have more of a token chance of justice under this law. Consider the ordeal of kim farington who is an faa inspector fired after she challenged the agents failure to issue proper training to flight attendance. The board overturned a hostile administrative judge decision but remanned rather than reversing the. They held a hearing but never issued a decision. Who held another hearing in 2013 but again did not rule. In may 2016, multiple sclerosis far rington protested the delays to the full board antiadministrative judge promptly responded with a june decision that rejected all of her claims without even referencing the hearing audio tape. There was no transcript because the Court Reporter had died during the delays. Her case is again on appeal. But due to vacancies the board cannot issue decisions and theres no end in sight. The lack of credible due process at the mspb achillies heel. Shifting tactics have made the law less effective because its more difficult to fire employees, agencies are opening more retaliatory investigations with criminal prosecution rereferrals and currently there is no defense against this even uglier form of harassment. Then theres the sensitive jobs loophole. And all encompassing loophole that will subsume the entire erit system if congress does not act and finally theres lack of acceptance. Immediately after his victory, tsa lagged four months and assigned him to air marshal missions on flight to the middle east despite intelligence that isil is combing the identity and he was the most visible air marshal in history. After the osc intervened the agency reassigned him to an empty room with no duties. It refused to consider even routine promotions forcing him into bankruptcy. All though he continues to make impressive dloerz on security breeches. It held a processing security clearance for ten months all though required to forward it within 14 days. He is still lost by winning due to the poor attitudes. Mr. Chairman, my written testimony has a full menu of suggestions for how we can deal with these challenges. Thank you. Mr. Divine. Thank you so much for your passionate and articulate testimony and i can assure you that we will be following up in ernst some of these things or things that we were aware of, some obviously not, but working with osc and making sure that theyre success rate is greater and not laborious is something that this committee is committed to but thank you so much. Thank you, member. Subcommittee chambers. And members of the subcommittee on Government Operations. Thank you for testifying me to testify today and your dedications of whistleblower protections. Five years ago Congress Passed the whistleblower protection enhancement act closing many loop holes for federal workers who blow the whistle on waste, fraud, abuse and illegty. That requires agencies to issue a statement notifying employees that statutory rights to communicate with congress and whistleblower protections supercede Agency Restrictions on dloerz or communications. In addition the wpea clarified that any whistleblower disclosure may be protected including when a Whistleblower Makes a wrnl disclosure to hiss or her supervisor. Similarly it clarified that a whistleblowers intention these changes provided a essential channels and prioritized disclosing wrongdoing. Finally the law created a Pilot Program for federal employees who appeal a judgment of the merits system protection board to file their appeal in any court of appeals in jurisdiction. This Committee Led the charge in extending that Pilot Program two years ago and should make that right permanent. While the positive impact of this law is significant, its enforcement has not been without issue. A report released two years after the passage of the wpea revealed that only one agency out of the 15 studied was fully client with the antigag provision of the law. This important provision has been called into question as recently as last week when several agencies ordered staff to cease or limit external communications. As members of this committee have recognized these directives may violent the law. Efforts to from communicating with congress and the public could represent a serious threat to Public Health and safety and congressional oversight is necessary to make sure that this important provision continues to be implemented properly. Despite broad Protection Laws like the wpea the totality protections dependent on where a whistleblower works in the government and in what capacity. The wpea afforded new and necessary protections to many federal employees when it was enacted but it excluded contractors despite having a proven track record of success. All though ic contractors have some protections under president ial policy directive it is too narrow to be considered comprehensive and can be revoked at the president s discretion. Whistle blowers must have safe channels to report abuses of power that betray the publics trust. The next round of whistleblower protection legislation must include protections for ic contractors. Congress should consider mandatory punishment against supervisor who retaliate against whistle blowers. Without mandatory punishment there is no substantial deterrence to violating these laws. With the proper chance to present a defense and appeal a final decision. Recently passed legislation creates a minimum 12 day unpaid suspension when a complaint that is a supervisor has retal yatd against a whistleblower is season assista it is also imp to undue a law whistleblower protections in cases where federal employees refuse to obey an order created by the agency. Another area of concern is the implementation of former president obamas Insider Threat program. This program was created in order to ensure responsible sharing and safeguarding of classified information. It includes a provision prohibiting the use of the program to identify or prevent lawful whistleblower dloerz. Weve repeatedly seeing Government Training materials with terrorist like the ft. Hood and navy yard and its generally Councils Office has implemented whistleblower training for the intelligence community. However, increased congressional oversight may be helpful to make sure this program isnt used improperly. Additionally the house should create a whistleblower to train Congressional Staff on working with whistle blowers and to provide assistance and advice to staff. Many of these issues that ive raised in my testimony hinge on congressional oversight. Passing stronger laws is a necessary first step but continued congressional oversight ensures that whistle blowers are championshiped and not punished. I look forward to your questions and thank you again for holding this important hearing. Thank you so much for your temperature. Ill now recognize the gentleman from florida, mr. Ross, for five minutes. Thank you. I thank the panel for being here. As we talk about the wpea it leads one to believe that it should have a dual purpose, first being a shield, a shield to protect those who have seen the wrong doingz or the corruption and allowed them the opportunities and quite frankly the incentives to report them. It should be a sword as well. It should be a sword to be able to go in and cut off the wrongdoing and enforce what needs to be done but it seems through some of this testimony that the sword has been turned back and has been turned back on the whistleblower my first question is to mr. Storch, it said that for every one whistleblower kpant that most cases theres a counter complaint against them by the person whom the complaint is lodged. Is this something that is routine for you or any other Inspector Generals to investigate as to the source or the circumstances surrounding the complaint to see if it may be a counter complaint . Thank you very much for the question. It raises important issues obviously as inspectors general we receive information in our offices from employees throughout our departments that we oversee, right, and one of the things we always take into account is the source of the information and we evaluate that as we evaluate the information. People may have lots of reasons they come forward. That doesnt in any way invalidate the information that they provide and, in fact, it can be very Important Information for us to have. So the primary thing we want to do is enkurng people to be able to come forward and be comfortable coming forward knowing that theyll be protected under the wpea but will they really be protected . They make themselves subject of a counter complaint if theyre not careful and thats the protection we can nip in the bud either through cross referencing or maybe theres a logger that can be worked out. Its a difficult question and i think our colleagues from osc referred to it in their prepared statements that theyre certainly are competing interests here because we want to encourage legitimate investigations but we dont want to have investigations be used to in any way deter people from coming forward and so the question is how do you strike that balance that protects whistle blowers and encourages them to come forward and we certainly would be very happy to continue to work with osc, with you and the committee on that. That leads me to my next question, how important is subpoena power . Thank you for the question. The subpoena power for us, he we currently have under an opem rule for documents or testimony . For both, but the issue that we have thats really related issue is our access to information where we think it would be extremely helpful for congress to clarify, give a statutory direct access to all relevant information and documents and witnesses and not be subject to perhaps an incorrect assertion of Attorney Client privilege by the agency, similar to what the igs currently have, so having that ability to know what the agency knows so that we can investigate whether wrongdoing occurred is essential. If somebody files an objection to a subpoena, whats the court of competent jurisdiction there . Who decides whether there should be enforcement . Where do you go . Its a cumbersome process. We need to go to the mspb. Mr. Divine pointed out has so they would not be able to move forward with that. If there was a quorum, would make the decision of whether or not to attempt to enforce that. That subpoena if still objected to would have to be enforced eventually in district courts. Yes. Lastly, mr. Bockman theres been one of the things has been that its lack of enforcement where i really think the sword should be, can you articulate in any way what additional measures of enforcement may be necessary in order to make it really effective, because as one who is a student of the law, deterrence having an impact on future behavior and future performance especially if somebody decides they dont want to have that repercussions against them, if they know what the law is and how to enforce it, any suggestions . Yes. We couldnt agree more that disciplinary actions play an importance deterrence role in the federal government. They have ripple effect, they show that managers can be held accountable. We have made a decision that we need to prioritize getting the whistleblower back on their feet and back on their job and protect them first. To the extent we can, though, i think we are proud that were able to increase the number of disciplinary actions. Of course with the Additional Resources i think we can do better than that. The chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. I thank my friend and welcome again to our panel. Mr. Storch, do you recall that back in 1988 long time ago, then senator chuck grasso whos still with us in the senate been there a long time, he had something called the antigag rule. Can you describe that to us if youre familiar with it. Anyone familiar with it . Yes, mr. Divine. It was instituted in december 1988 to thwart an undisclosure policy being ordered through the federal government that prevented the employees from disclosing classifiable information. Since classifiable is designed as any information that could or should have been classified they created back door. The restrictions on funding to implement or enforce that were passed unanimously without exception through the time of the wpea when congress codified those rights. And it was in some ways designed, was it not well, that antigag rule even was ultimately incorporated into the whistleblower protection act is that correct. Yes, sir. And so let me ask you this, we have the acting secretary of the department of health and Human Services on the very first day of the new administration writing, quote, no correspondence to Public Officials for example, members of congress and governors, his example not mine, unless specifically authorized by me or my designee shall be sent between now and february 3rd. How does that comport with the antigag provision of the whistleblower protection act. The official who issued the order said new team new rules but those new rules cansettle rule of law, congressman. It violates three provisions. It violates two appropriations riders, it violates the act of 1912 and, by the way, the first amendment. Other than that, its just helpful guidance. Okay. Anyone else on the panel want to comment on that. Mr. Storch . Mr. Divine has just said what i read from a member of the new administration violates the law in a number of laws and the constitution itself in a number of respects. Yes. Youre from the department of justice, would you concur . I was a prosecutor at the time of senator grassleys rule that you referred to but i have been with the office of Inspector General for our oig for the last four and a half years and im very familiar with the provision of the wpea that requires that appropriate language be put in place in any policy or agreement that would attempt to deter communications by whistle blowers, requiring that and anything. And anything that doesnt do that would be in violation of that provision of the wpea. You would concur . I would and i would even go further. Even if these statements or these guidance documents are reissued with the disclaimer that theyre required to have theyve already had a Chilling Effect. So that, you know, i would encourage this committee to continue its rigorous oversight and keep watching. What could go wrong with the Chilling Effect . If you dont have whistle blowers feeling like they can come forward through protect the channels youll see more and more increase leaks to the media, to the press and i think you always want the strongest whistleblower protections in place because you want to incentivize people within an agency to go through that proper channels and theyre not going to if theyre not going to be safe. But theyre also not going to go through those channels if theyre meaningful channels. If they dont see that the complaints theyre making through those proper channels are being taken seriously and addressed within the agency. And one might note that this committee, historically has been the recipient of whistleblower information that has often led to useful legislation and sunshine hearings that spotlight an issue that otherwise wouldnt get coverage, so the Chilling Effect in deterring people or discouraging people from providing that information to elected members of Congress Actually can really preclude the ability to reform and fix problems we identify because were not identifying them. I yield back. I thank the jae. The chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa mr. Blum for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. My questions are primarily for mr. Storch or mr. Bachman. How many whistle blowers have there been over the last two years, the last session of congress . Thank you for the question. I can tell you for osc this past year we received a total of 6,000 complaints across all of our Program Areas of those 6,000, 2,000 alleged that they had been retaliated against for blowing the whistle and thats consistent over the last two years, so. So a third of them. About 4,000 from our office. Is that trend up or down number of whistle blowers that we are aware of . That trend is up. And why do you think so . I think theres several different factors. I think number one is the enhanced outreach in education that osc, the igs, the om budsman have been doing throughout the government. Om buds person excuse me for that. That is whats in the law, but i think more and more agencies and employees are better informed about their rights and where to go to make these complaints. I think theres been increased attention through congress and the media on these rights and i think its encouraged more people to come forward with complaints. Of these cases, how many were threatened by management, either explicit or implicitly . Of the whittle blower retaliation almost all of them are so 2,000 of the 6,000. Are saying that they have been subjected. Would you define a positive outcome . Positive outcome covers a range of issues. It could be us settling or helping to settle the case between the whistleblower and the employee where they get anywhere job back or damages for back pay if they were out of their job, maybe they get a suspension reskinned or were able to temporarily halt their termination while we investigated. So those are the types of things that we say are favorable outcome for whistle blowers over of the last couple of years coming to our office, its ranged about 200 favorable outcomes a year for them coming to our office. Do you need more staff . Absolutely. We could use more resources. We are stretched to capacity. Our folks are doing a fantastic job. Theyre achieving record levels of successes but theyre also carrying case loads that are two or three times as high as they normally would be. Im from the private sector from iowa and theres a perception there that the federal government is bloated, that the federal employees are overpaid and most importantly its next to impossible to terminate a federal employee. I know its not particularly your area of expertise but were talking about accountability. Id like to ask in the concept of whistleblowers, what happens to the manager or supervisor who threatened the retaliation, what happens . Often people sit here and theyve done things that are waste, fraud and abuse and i ask did you get a bonus, the answer is yes . Did you get a promotion . Half the time its yes. Worse cases theyve get assigned. What happens to supervisors who threaten retaliation against a whistleblower . What happens . Thats excellent question and we couldnt agree more about the importance of the deterrence factor when it comes to disciplinary actions. We have increased our rate of achieving those by over 100 what kind of number we talking about. Going from 23 in the years prior to the wpea to 50 over the last four years but in addition to that. So 50 out of 2,000 . 50 out of the 2,000 although i do want to clarify one issue on that denominator of 2,000 when were talking about that it doesnt that 2,000 number includes a number of cases for example, 15 that are actually discrimination claims which we defer to the Agency Process on that so we dont handle those. Another 12 or so we dont have jurisdiction over and then another portion of that just dont meet the statutory. How can we increase that . Its such a serious thing for a supervisor against an employee whos trying to do well. We need to increase that number. Resources absolutely would help but i ko do want to add that there are other ways that we help to get discipline imposed through our disclosure process with the virginia over the last couple of years. The v. A. Alone that was brought to light by whistle blowers and us referring that case to the v. A. They subsequently disciplined those employees. It can happen through our other Program Areas and it does. Once again thank you and mr. Chairman i yield back the time i do not have. I thank the gentleman from iowa. The chair recognizes the gentle woman from new jersey. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you all for coming and for your testimony. We heard reports last week that multiple federal agencies issued gag orders on federal Employee Communications and one of the memos obtained by the committee appears to specifically prohibit employees from speaking to congress in violation of the whistleblower protection enhancement act and now sean spicer has declared that state Department Employees who utilize the departments dissent channel to object to the president s executive order on immigration should quote, get with the program or they can go, close quote. Mr. Divine, do you believe that the state Department Dissent Channel say means by which the state Department Employees can blow the whistle . Yes, maam and indeed its the type of channel that the postures on the wall of every office in the government direct employees to bring their concerns if they want to blow the whistle. This is the proper channels that youre supposed to use if youre a Public Servant whos following and rnting the code of ethics. It is incompatible with the whistleblower protection act to threaten people with termination or ask them to leave because theyre doing what the code of ethics says theyre supposed to. Thank you i think you answered my second he question. So is it your understanding that communication in this manner through this dissent channel should be protected . There could be no credible disagreement that under the laws as written thats legally protected speech and there should be discipline against those who try to cancel the flow of information to congress. To respond to the earlier question, one way to change some deterrence would be empowering judges to order discipline as part of the relief when they find a violation of the whistleblower protection act. Would you say that if indeed. White House Press Secretary threatened those employees by saying that quote, get with the program or they can go, that that sounds like a potential violation of the whistleblower protection acts prohibition . Mr. Spicer didnt have lpz hes not eligible to violate because he cant recommend or take a personnel action but he wasnt speaking for himself. Absolutely. So the people behind the policy were violating the law. So im glad to hear that and sorry to have to deal with that issue because i certainly am alarmed by the president that the trump has said in his first few days in office. He has the time to make changes that will create a better tone. Id like to enter into the record a letter dated january 26th 2017 from Ranking Member cummings and Ranking Member pa loan to the White House Council and i have it right here. Without objection. Thank you. This letter recommends that the president immediately rescind all policies on employees communications that do not comply with the whistleblower protection act. Mr. Backman do you agree with this communication . Thank you for the question. And i cant speak directly on this issue because i dont want to prejudge a case or an investigation that may become before my office but what i can do is speak more broadly about the idea that everybody shares the goal of cutting waste, fraud and abuse in our government, but in order to do that you have got to encourage whistle blowers to come forward. Theyre the ones who know about that waste, fraud and abuse. And tone at the top really matters in these situations and thats whats going to encourage and give employees that comfort that if they come forward theyre not going to be retaliated against. On a broader level we have two recommendations here. The first is that to cure any potential Chilling Effect on whistle blowing that nondisclosure agreements or policies may have had, Agency Leadership once theyre installed or if theyre already installed should make it very clear in writing to all their employees that any nondisclosure agreements or policies that went out do not wipe out ranging thank you. Just really quite briefly. Do you believe that it is important that the president of the United States set the tone by stating affirmatively that there is whistleblower protection, that individuals do have the right to speak to Congress Members and that theres nothing that this administration will do that will place any daunting upon whistleblower protection, thats a yes or no and if you would each just give me a yes or no on that id appreciate it and thank you mr. Chairman. Yes, the gen tell womans time has inspired but you can give. Yes, tone at the top is critical and support of whistle blowers is paramount. I agree. Yes if the president wants whistle blowers to help him drain the swamp, he cant feed them to the algators, maam. I agree and i think its important for any Incoming Administration to make that clear from the beginning. Thank you. I thank the gentle woman, youll be pleased to hear that today chairman cha fis and i are going Chuck Grassley to send a letter to the white house encouraging it to use whistle blowers as an ally to identify waste, fraud and abuse in mismanagement in the federal government. Were suggesting that the white house clarify any confusion that may exist regarding various transition memos as they relate to the wpea or the antigag provision which senator grassley authored. These are issues that extremely important to those of us that are committed to making government work more effectively through the oversight process and we will ensure that whistleblower rights to communicate directly with congress are not impeded. With that i will recognize the vice chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from georgia mr. Hieft. Thank you very much and thank each of you for being here. Mr. Backman i think i heard you say and im not sure that you really meant this but you said everyone in government wants to deal with waste, fraud and abuse. Im not so sure that thats an accurate statement. I actually have come to more or less believe that the three real branches of our government are waste, fraud and abuse. You feel like that sometimes and its a serious problem but the whistle blowers as you did go on and say are essential ingredient to dealing with this problem. Can you give me a couple of examples of what the retaliation of these whistleblowers looks like . Certainly. We have had a number of cases recently with the v. A. Before i go into this i do want to say the v. A. Has been an excellent example of good tone at the top. I think they really have made strides to improve their protections of whistle blowers. That being said weve had a number of whistleblower retaliation complaints with them. One of them involves a employee in their puerto rico facility who blew the whistle about directors of that facility was engaged in that he believed evidence of violation of law rule or regulation. Very soon after that, this employee found himself detailed to a position in which he had basically no job functions, no office and no real career path after that. After he filed a complaint with osc, we were able to get involved, get him temporarily put back into his job while we investigated. Ultimately was able to get his job back full time, get him damages for what he suffered and the v. A. Has recently announced the removal of the director of that facility. Okay. Thats a good outcome when all is said and done but thats somewhat of a typical retaliation. And outward change in their job or responsibilities, are there more settle retaliations, ill just open this up but if you could answer relatively quickly because i want to drive some where with this, what is a more subtle less obvious retaliation . For example, just getting less glamour russ assignments in the agency, its hard to really put your finger on exactly what it is but you know its effecting your career and those can be extremely damaging and frankly extremely difficult to investigate as well. Okay. Id like you i would refer again to the retaliatory investigations that have been mentioned earlier, we call them weapons of choice because its a winwin situation for the agency, either they find something and then they can take whatever action they want to against the whistleblower and have a reason for it or they dont find something and it just looks like they were doing their due diligence. So in your testimony, i believe you suggested some legislative solutions. What how do you draw the balance in providing an agency the ability to investigate and at the same time protect the whistleblower . What does the legislation look like to you . I believe that was in toms yes, sir. Its really not a different balance than any other personnel action. We need to terminate employees who dont perform properly. We dont want to abuse that responsibilities and its the same with investigations. Wed recommend just exempting routine administrative nondiscussion from the excoverage but the discretionary ones are very, very commonly used. Theyre more chilling than the personnel action when they lead to criminal prosecutions. We see a very theres another one opened two months later and it just goes on indefinitely. This has a far greater Chilling Effect than conventional personnel actions. So the congressional action would be the congressional action would be the similar to what we have in all of the corporate whistleblower laws and in many state whistleblower laws that you can challenge a retaliatory investigation as a violation of the whistleblower protection act. We agree there should be limitations on it so it cant function, the routine necessary. You cant interfere with the routine necessary but when its miss used, this is a start of almost every case of retaliation, to shift the spotlight from the message to the messenger and try to destroy their credibility, ruin them and make an example. And you can do that without ever touching the whistleblower protection act because theyre defensively until the other shoe drops, and if the other shoe is the prosecution referral, the act never becomes relevant. The whistleblower is defenseless. Thank you mr. Chairman. The chair recognizes the gentle woman from michigan, mr. Lawrence for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman and to my Ranking Member. Last month the republicans included the homeen act as part of the rules package for the 115th congress. This rule allows lawmakers to slash the salary of an individual federal employee to 1. Imagine a federal employee who is considering blowing the whistle on wrongdoing even if that disclosure is protected, meaning the agency can cannot take retaliatory action, nothing prevents congress from slashing that employees salary. Mr. Divine asked the other ones to, what do you think the homeen rule, do you think it will have a Chilling Effect on the whistleblower disclosure . It should have a Chilling Effect because it creates a deep vulnerability. It allows members of congress to engage in the same actions that would be illegal if taken by an executive Branch Employee who actually is familiar with the whistleblowerS Performance or work so its a serious new loophole that should be addressed. Mr. Bockman. I agree. I think that anything like the homeen rule or nondisclosure agreements that might have a Chilling Effect on employees that might give somebody pause or far more than pause about coming forward to expose waste, fraud and abuse in the government, thats something that from a whistleblowers point of view is not helpful and ill leave it at that. Thank you. Mr. Storch . Id certainly agree. We want to encourage people to comeford with information. Thats the only way we can find out whats going on and be able to address if it appropriate. If people in our Government Agencies dont feel comfortable coming forward whether because they feel theyre going to suffer reprisal or they feel theyre going to suffer some other economic consequences thats a thing that could deter them from coming forward and something we want to stop. We get over 12,000 complaints a year on our hotline at doj which is just one agency. Something like r5 hundred of those were whistle blowers. Not all of that reprisal cases because a lot of those go to the osc but having said that we do see a lot of reprisal and we see it increasing. We oversee the fbi and with the fbi wpea its only going to increase. Thats a good thing. But with that comes a cost, a cost in terms of resources. Thats something we think its important to do because we want to encourage people to come forward. And anything that stops that from happening or deteres that is a bad thing. I served as an investigator for federal agency and the one thing i will say and im glad that you all are saying it, the act of discrimination or case of thats filed, the culture of organization is based on that reprisal point and if we do not manage that and make sure that were clear that reprisal of a person whistle blowing or victim of discrimination will not be tolerated, it is extremely chilling and damaging for any organization and the last thing i want to say, i wanted to hear from you, miss. I agree with my copanelists that we are deeply concerned that the homeen rule can be used to retaliate against whistle blowers as tom said. It would be perfectly legal for it too. Its not against the wpea. It creates more works for the members of this Committee Oversight over that rule and making sure that its not used against retaliation. I think employees of federal agencies are going to look to you and to the house whistleblower protection caucus to make sure you are conducting that oversight and making sure its not being used as a new tool to retaliate against whistle blowers. I want to say to the chairman its refreshing to hear that the party, my colleagues are actually taken on the banner of saying how important our whistle blowers are to the health and the trust of the American People and that we are doing our job. And we must continue to protect the whistleblower. Thank you and i yield back. I thank the gentle woman for her kind comments. The chair recognizes himself for a series of questions so let me start off by saying for those that are whistle blowers that are watching here today, this is something that the Ranking Member and i, the retaliation we will not tolerate. And by saying that it means that we wont forget there are people here in the audience, theres also people here that are watching that are hoping against hope that mr. Bachman that they can get their reputation back and sometimes its not even the final aspect, it is really the humiliation of being treated the way that theyve been treated by a government that should and can do better. And so i say that because its really easy to have hearings and assume that nothings going to happen. Thats not the way that i conduct my hearings. In fact, if anything this is normally a culmination of fine, fine work by the staff and i like to take all the credit for their great work and yet it is their work that brings forth the hearing but also has a followup hearing. The gentleman from virginia and i are committed to making sure that protections are there. With that being said mr. Bockman that a third of the whistle blowers are retaliated against, out of 6,000, some 2,000 are retaliated against. Let me clarify that. The overall number of cases that osc receives across all Program Areas is 6,000. In terms of whistleblower retaliation complaints we receive its 2,000, so. Okay. So even if we look at whistleblower retaliation one of the things that weve talked about when we talk about Chilling Effects, is there any consequences to those that actually do the retaliation because im not seeing a whole bunch other than at times maybe a slap on the wrist or even that may be more than they get, they get a letter in their file. Mr. Backman are we seeing any of that. We couldnt agree more that we would like to see more disciplinary actions. As i said, weve made it 100 over increase in those numbers. We obviously want to do more. Our main focus has been to help the whistleblower when they come to us, theyve been fired, we need to get them back in their job and back on their feet. I do think getting them back on their job does send a message. Its not the same thing as getting that manager fired, but it does send a message to the other employees that this person was protected, they were brought and i do get that. And i understand that but i guess heres my concern with that. Having been in the private sector for a long time im rewarded for those things i get rewarded by and i do them more and those things that i dont get rewarded for or get punished for i dont do them and if there is neither the reward for Good Behavior so maybe we look at this if you have zero whistleblower retaliation events that you get some kind of recognition im not sure how we go about this, but i can tell you the Ranking Member and i will have a private conversation, the time is now and what i would ask of each of you is to give this committee some of your recommendations on how we can do that because if weve got senior level managers who will continue to do this and mr. Backman with all due respect, youre doing a great job but they can authorithwart we do know with tsa, they thwart you and they try to run out the clock and when they are running out the clock, bringing one person back sends an unbelievable message to all those other whistle blowers and the reason i know that is because i get calls from agencies all across the country and theyre calling and they make sure their numbers are unoitded and they call with a yass and just because they know that i will actually do something about it, but the other problem that we have there is if theyre that fearful to talk to a member of congress, then weve got a systematic problem that weve got to address. I would ask, are you all willing to give recommendations to this committee in terms of how we can make incentivize or discourage the behavior and give me two recommendations on what you see. Mr. Storch you willing to do that . Yes, happy. One thing i would add that weve been doing for a while and was very happy to see in the igm empowerment act was posting of instances where theres been reprisal and thats something we always look at these reprisal cases but say in the fbi area we look at them both in terms of the whistleblower obviously and the harm theyve suffered for coming forward and performing the service of doing that but also we look at the person who engaged in the reprisal and whether or not we can show that that constitutes misconduct and if so we would refer that. We had a posting not long ago where we posted a fairly high level person within the fbi who we found based on our investigation had engaged in reprisal against someone who had blown the whistle and we publicly reported on that. Were not the ad jude cative body and very happy to see that in the igm empowerment act and i think others do that and as more of that happens hopefully people will see that there are consequences for supervisors and managers who engage in that conduct. So since you do it there at doj would you say thats something we need to implement through opm or some directive from opm . My understanding of the igm empowerment act is all of the igs will be reporting when they find instances of reprisal that bypasses osc when you indeed if its an ig investigation that applies and its very familiar with that act but at the same time its critical that we send a message so if you all would do that, mr. Bockman you willing to do that. Yes. Including within performance evaluation so every employee against a performance appraisal. That they will be judged upon having an open atmosphere that would encourage whistle blowing that is also been made part of the v. A. S Performance appraisals so we think that could have a big impact as well. Tone at the top as i mentioned previously and i want to commend you this, committee and senator grassley for walking the walk and planning to send this letter i think sends exactly the right messages to it either is gone or about to go out so by the time we gavel out well be there. I agree with mr. Bachman and i think thats why structural reform in franchising the ability to seek discipline is part of the due process. That a whistleblower should be able to seek discipline as part of the relief when prohibited prn nel practice is proven. The other alternative is to restore personal liability for constitutional violations which historically existed but the Supreme Court cancelled in 1983 due to passage of the statutory provisions and congress could restore that liability and that also would create deterrence. Those are good recommendations. The latter one will be much more difficult to have happen. So. I would be happy to give you some more recommendations after the hearing but i will just repeat what i said in my testimony that i think its incredibly important that we make punishment for those found to have retaliated against whistle blowers mandatory. It was in the v. A. Bill last year and went through and when you have this mandatory punishment for somebody who retal yates you got to make sure you have due process in place, but a mandatory suspension for the first offense sounds fair to me and sends that picture that retaliation is not acceptable and wont be rewarded because a lot of times these people who are retaliating receive bonuses are moved up and out of the agency. So one final question and then ill recognize the Ranking Member. Mr. Bachman in terms of former federal employees and the protections there, what kind of circumstances would you be able to help with former federal employees. Thats an excellent question and identified one of the big gaps in our enforcement areas. Right now if youre an employee or applicant for federal position, you are protected from retaliation, however, if youve left the federal government and then somebody retal yates against you because of what you had disclosed the wpea does not cover that so right now we are not able to what about things they disclose after theyve left so theyre retiring. . Ive had some come to my office afraid to share anything because theyre afraid of potential retaliation with either clearances or retirements or anything else . If that for example, if they retired and then blew the whistle and were considering being reemployed or Something Like that, yes, i think that should be covered and osc has taken that position recently in a brief that any disclosure means any dloefr regardless of whether youre an employee at the time. If you then seek employment with the federal government and they hold that against you thats whistleblower retaliation. With that i would look forward to maybe some clarifying language that we could work in a legislative manner and ill recognize Ranking Member. Just underscoring your points, mr. Meadows, i think we would be interested in trying to look at some kind of set of standards for disciplinary action when somebody is conclusive found to have retaliated against whistleblower. The adjudication is going to be important because i am aware of cases of the opposite, where somebody claimed to have been discriminated against its simply not true when you look at the evidence and they either have it in their head or they have a grievance against somebody and they want to tarnish their good name. So we have to be careful about that too in protecting reputations. The interesting thing to get at for me, what i hear the most about is, retaliation is more subtle than that. Putting someone in a broom closet without a phone and without a window, everyone can catch on to that. But its the subtle performance erosion in the evaluation and the lack of promotion that follows from that because youve got a bad evaluation or suddenly issues are cropping up and its done cleverly and automatic sinster way to damage your career and your good name overtime. I think that is one that i worry a lot about because its much harder to get at, its harder to prove but in some ways its even more insidious. I dont know if anyone wants to comment on that before we close the hearing. I would agree entirely. I would just say based on our experience when weve done these investigations in the fbi context with the contractors and the like, the more subtle the discrimination or the action, the more difficulty it is to ferret out. Not that this is a play for resources, it feeds into that problem because they are very resource intensive investigations. I know i dont have to tell osc that. Osgs across the communities. We believe in the work of whistle blowers and we dont want to see them suffer reprisal. There are dont get too carried away. I know one example in an oig office where this occurred and it was the ig doing it. I dont claim anything is absolute but i think people certainly i can speak for our office. We get and others in our working group have talked about the importance of these principles but also talked about the difficulty of ferreting out just that sort of subtle discrimination. I really do think it feeds into this issue that these are really important issues that we want to be able to tackle and work with you on tackling and work with you on getting the resources to make sure we can do it effectively. And for osc we couldnt agree more on the importance of these subtle forms of retaliation and we really made it a point in our office for our complaints examining unit who are the initial front lines, if they see Something Like this and they believes theres an evidence violation that we want to address this as quickly as possible because a it stops the bad action from happening. It helps the whistleblower but b it lets the agency, lets the folks know were looking at the little stuff too. Were not just going looking at the termination were looking at the subtler forms of retaliation and also in terms of our outreach programs, we make sure to include that these smaller personnel actions thats retaliation too and you cant do it. Sir, your insight about subtle retaliation is very well taken. The whistleblower protection act shields against harassment such as refusing to give people training that would allow them to advance in their careers. One of the common tactics that i come across is in a performance appraisal having a comment in the appraisal that im disturbed that mr. Smith is not a team player and that sends a message to all future employers and job applications that are reviewed and your question is a cue for the importance of the briefs by the office of special counsel and the job duties. Portion of the whistleblower protection act thats the only portion that requires actual retaliation and the board has been drifting into expanding the scope of the job duties loophole in having high burdens of proof for it. This could be interpreted very narrowly. Theres no Public Policy relevance to whether whistleblower commits the truth as part of an assignment. Should be there when youre just doing your job properly. I dont know if i have anything to add, however, it is definite thats something that were very concerned about and im happy to hear that you share that concern and plan to do more on that going forward. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. Thank you, all for your enlighting testimony. I can assure you that it will be followed up on our staff here is one that diligent but theyre tenacious and so in doing that if theres no more business before the committee, the committee stands adjourned. Sunday night on q a. In all these years ive never seen a case where the snowden case were so uncritically journalist have accepted information from a Single Source who is in moscow under the control of the russian government. Investigative journalist on his book how america lost its secrets Edward Snowden the man and the theft. He did enormous damage. I dont even know if his supporters say that he did no damage. They say he did enormous good. Thats their view and maybe he did some good because he started a National Conversation and he opened up a subject of interest, but i think where trump certainly right is that this man has not faced justice and he deserves to face justice, whatever the should be decided. Sunday night at 8 eastern on cspan3s q a. Officials from Utility Companies in oklahoma, West Virginia and wyoming and delaware and colorado discussed infrastructure funding needs and modernization efforts with law maimers or capitol hill. From the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee this is two hours