Strengthening Whistleblower Protections for Federal Employees

"I applaud Chairman Davis for scheduling this hearing.  In light of the Supreme Court decision that whistleblowers are not entitled to First Amendment protections, it is that much more important that we restore and strengthen the statutory protections given to whistleblowers under federal law.  Being a whistleblower takes courage.  Reporting waste, fraud and abuse within the federal government should not result in harassment, a damaged career, or the loss of income or employment altogether.  It is important for potential whistleblowers to feel that, if they come forward, they are truly protected by federal law.

The full House Government Reform Committee approved legislation I introduced, the Federal Employees Protection of Disclosures Act (HR 1317), on September 29 2005.  A version of this legislation was also recently adopted as an amendment to the Senate defense authorization bill (S. 2766).  Related legislation concerning national security whistleblowers (HR 5112) was approved by the House Government Reform Committee on April 6, 2006.  I urge the full House to consider and pass both HR 1317 and HR 5112 as soon as possible."

What:              Government Reform Committee Oversight Hearing,
"What Price Free Speech?: Whistleblowers and the Ceballos Decision"
 
When:             THURSDAY, June 29, 2006, 11:00 A.M.
                                           
Where:            ROOM 2154, RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

Background:   Richard Ceballos, a deputy district attorney for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, filed a lawsuit claiming that public employees should be protected by the First Amendment from retaliation when they make statements in the course of their employment with which their superiors disagree.
 
In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court disagreed, holding that, "when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline."