[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 131 (Wednesday, September 16, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2295]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 700 H. Res. 317--
Recognizing the region from Manhattan, Kansas, to Columbia, Missouri,
as the Kansas City Animal Health Corridor, and for other purposes.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION
______
HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, today I am re-introducing
legislation that would close a loophole in the Department of Defense's
whistleblowers' protection statue (10 U.S.C. Sec. 2409) and expand this
safeguard to include the men and women of the DOD contracting business
who report abuses to their superiors.
Under current law, an individual is only protected--and therefore
eligible for remedies--if he or she reports workplace security concerns
to ``a Member of Congress or an authorized official of an agency or the
Department of Justice.'' While I understand the importance of
encouraging individuals to take their concerns to certain authorities,
I believe it is imperative that we include in this authority an
employee's superiors.
It seems only natural, that once someone recognizes a problem within
their work environment, they report it to their superiors. This is part
of a normal progression of attempting to resolve issues and challenging
tasks on the job. Few people initially contact their Congressman or the
Department of Justice when they first observe an irregularity on the
job.
It is also important to note that many former military members
migrate to the security contracting industry. Many of these men and
women have years of previous service to our nation, have grown to
respect their chain of command and understand the benefit it can
provide in the workplace. When they have come to the conclusion that
additional steps must be taken or when they have identified a
significant problem in the work environment, these professionals are
trained and encouraged to report their concerns to their superiors to
enable them to assess the situation and foster a solution.
Similarly, many in the federal security contracting industry come
from a law enforcement background with a comparable command structure
and respect for their superiors.
The current loophole was brought to my attention by a New Jersey
resident who worked for a private security firm that guards military
installations in my district and throughout the country. This
individual witnessed and documented a number of events that raised
serious concerns regarding the contractor's ability to ensure the
safety and security of the base and the surrounding community.
At my request, the DOD IG performed an audit of the contract (Report
No. D-2009-045) and verified many of the claims that this individual
brought to my attention. The report found that the Navy was not able to
provide documentation showing all contractor security guards had
completed a basic background check--raising questions as to whether or
not the required security checks were performed or completed for all
security personnel guarding the munitions depot. There was also a
problem with training, and an inability to determine whether or not the
training was adequate. There was nothing in the files to find out
whether a guard has had the training that is required by Federal law
and Federal regulations.
The individual who brought this loophole to my attention reported to
his employer what he believed--and what the IG report verified--were
unfulfilled contract requirements that resulted in questions regarding
the firm's ability to provide adequate security. After his boss
dismissed his concerns, he then scheduled a meeting with the base
security personnel to discus the matter. Before this meeting could
occur, the individual was fired by the firm and barred from the base.
At that time, he brought these concerns to me. However, since the law
requires that a potential whistleblower be a current employee at the
time he/she discloses pertinent information to a federal official, it
was too late for him to be eligible for protections and/or remedies.
Specifically, my legislation would expand the universe of those to
whom an individual can properly report concerns to include the
individual's chain of command, before and after any retribution, so
that the individual will be protected and have the right to be
reinstated if an investigation shows that the individual was punished
for bringing the matter to the attention of proper authorities.
The legislation I re-introduced today will ensure that those who
identify problems within firms subcontracted by DOD are still afforded
standard whistleblower protections even if they notify their employer
about possible violations before they notify an agent of the federal
government. The legislation does not require employees to notify their
employer first and it does not preclude them from contacting federal
officials, it simply protects employees who point out potential
violations to their employer, the federal government or both. If an
employee is dismissed prior to his/her notifying the government, but
after notifying their employer, they will receive the necessary
protections as well.
Base security is not an issue to be taken lightly--anywhere and
including in my state of New Jersey. As we all recall, the New Jersey
U.S. Attorney's office arrested five men who were planning to attack
another New Jersey installation, Fort Dix. After a thorough and
aggressive law enforcement effort this attempted terror attack was
thwarted and the men were found guilty on charges of conspiracy to harm
U.S. military personnel. Still, the vulnerabilities at our military
bases exposed by this incident cannot be minimized or dismissed.
As we are all aware, in recent years the Department of Defense has
looked increasingly to private security contractors to guard and police
our military installations across the country. The men and women
filling these positions deserve to be protected when they report
violations and concerns to their superiors and especially if they are
subsequently punished in an attempt by their employer to downplay or
even cover up a violation. It is imperative that we amend the law to
ensure that these employees are eligible for the same remedies as other
whistleblowers.
____________________