Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act
Latest action. House Committee on Armed Services Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Dec. 8, 2006.
Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act - (Sec. 2) Includes as a protected disclosure by a federal employee any lawful disclosure an employee or applicant for employment reasonably believes is credible evidence of waste, abuse, gross mismanagement, or substantial and specific danger to public health or safety without restriction as to time, place, form, motive, context, or prior disclosure. (Sec. 3) Defines the term "disclosure" to mean a formal or informal communication, but does not include a communication concerning policy decisions that lawfully exercise discretionary authority unless the employee providing the disclosure reasonably believes that the disclosure evidences: (1) any violation of any law, rule, or regulation; or (2) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. (Sec. 4) Codifies the legal standard for determining whether a whistleblower has a reasonable belief that a disclosure evidences governmental waste, fraud, or abuse, or a violation of law. (Sec. 5) Includes under the definition of "personnel action" the implementation or enforcement of any nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement. Prohibits taking the following actions against whistleblowers making protected disclosures: (1) the implementation or enforcement of any nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement; and (2) an investigation (other than routine nondiscretionary agency investigations) of an employee or applicant. (Sec. 6) Authorizes the President to exclude certain agencies engaged in the conduct of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence activities from whistleblower protections if such exclusion is made prior to any personnel action against the whistleblower. (Sec. 7) Expands the authority of the Merit Systems Protection Board to impose disciplinary action for prohibited personnel practices. (Sec. 8) Requires a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study on security clearances revocations taking effect after 1996 with respect to personnel that filed claims in connection with such security clearance revocations. (Sec. 9) Permits an employee, former employee, or applicant to bring an action against the United States at law or equity for de novo review as an alternative recourse in seeking corrective action with respect to a prohibited personnel practice. (Sec. 10) Amends the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to modify remedy and enforcement authority under provisions relating to the protection of contractor employees from reprisal for disclosure of certain information, including by permitting such an employee who has been subjected to a reprisal prohibited by such provisions to bring an action at law or equity for de novo review in order to seek compensatory damages and other relief available under those provisions. Makes an identical amendment with respect to federal military law relating to the protection of military contractor employees from reprisal for disclosure of certain information. (Sec. 11) Makes certain prohibited personnel practices provisions applicable to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).
Written by analysts at the Congressional Research Service and published on Congress.gov, not by Civibrief. Summarized at the "Reported to House amended, Part I" stage on June 29, 2006. It describes the bill, it is not the legal text.
Where is it in the process, and what happens next?
4 steps remain before this bill could become law.
The record's latest action, on November 17, 2006: House Committee on Armed Services Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Dec. 8, 2006.
- Clearing the committees it was referred to, and being scheduled for a floor vote
- Passage by the House
- Passage by the Senate
- The President's signature. If the President vetoes it, two-thirds of both chambers must vote to override.
How likely is it to become law?
Civibrief does not forecast outcomes and this page has no opinion about this one. What the record supports is a base rate, which is a fact about the whole pile, not a prediction about this measure.
In the 109th Congress (2005-06), 482 of the 10,701 bills and joint resolutions introduced became law, about 4.5 percent. That count covers every measure at every stage, including the many that never left committee.
This one is not there yet: 4 steps are still outstanding, listed above.
Has anyone actually voted on it?
No. No roll call in this Congress cites this measure. That is the ordinary outcome: most measures never reach a recorded floor vote, and a committee ends most of them simply by not acting.
A vote is not the only thing that happens to a measure. Hearings, markups, and referrals are all recorded actions, and none of them is a vote of the full chamber.
Who is behind it?
TODD PLATTS (R-PA) introduced it on March 15, 2005, and 22 members have since signed on as cosponsors.
They come from both major parties: 17 Democrats, 5 Republicans.
Cosponsoring is a formal signature on the text. It is not a commitment to vote for the measure, it does not bind anyone's party, and a long list of cosponsors is a measure of attention rather than of prospects.
How long has it been in play?
It was introduced on March 15, 2005, 7849 days ago. The most recent recorded action was 7237 days ago, on November 17, 2006.
Measures do not carry over. Anything the 109th Congress has not finished by January 3, 2007 dies when the term ends, and has to be introduced again from the start in the next Congress.
Every answer above is assembled from this measure's own record on Congress.gov and from published counts of what Congress has passed before. Civibrief does not predict outcomes and takes no position on any measure.
Vote history
- HouseIn committee, no floor vote yet
- SenateAwaits House passage
- PresidentAwaits both chambers