PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 103-424.
Congressional Research Service
Version 35 · Passed Senate amended · Oct 7, 1994
Amends the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (WPA) to extend the authorization of appropriations for the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and the Merit Systems Protection Board through 1997. Makes miscellaneous and technical amendments to various OSC provisions under WPA, including those regarding OSC administration and powers of disclosure, investigation of prohibited personnel practices and individual rights of action in certain reprisal cases, and OSC reports. Amends Federal law to: (1) provide for the awarding of reasonable attorney fees by agencies to prevailing parties in certain cases; (2) subject to review in whistleblower cases any agency decision to require psychiatric testing or examination of an employee or any other significant change in duties, responsibilities, or working conditions made by the agency; (3) make agency heads responsible for ensuring that their employees are informed of whistleblower rights and remedies; (4) make compliance with merit systems principles a factor in Senior Executive Service performance appraisals; (5) provide for the application of certain merit systems provisions to certain Department of Veterans Affairs personnel; (6) allow corrective actions by the Merit Systems Protection Board to include placing the individual, as nearly as possible, in the position he or she would have been had the prohibited personnel practice not occurred, as well as reimbursement for attorney's fees, back pay and related benefits, medical costs incurred, travel expenses, and any other reasonable and foreseeable consequential damages; (7) provide aggrieved individuals (including, specifically, the employees of the Resolution Trust Corporation and Thrift Depositor Protection Oversight Board) with a choice of remedies with respect to certain prohibited personnel practices; (8) revise the definition of covered position with respect to prohibited personnel practices; and (9) provide that the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund is made available for any expenses incurred by the Board in administering Federal retirement appeals. Requires OSC to: (1) issue a policy statement regarding the implementation of WPA; (2) include in any letter terminating an investigation of a prohibited personnel practice the identification of an OSC employee who can respond to questions on the investigation or review; and (3) conduct an annual survey of all individuals who contacted the office for assistance for inclusion in its annual report.
People & committees
Rep. McCloskey, Frank [D-IN-8] · D–IN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 103-424.
Became Public Law No: 103-424.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to without objection. (consideration: CR H11422)
Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to without objection.(consideration: CR H11422)
Mr. McCloskey asked unanimous consent that the House agree to the Senate amendment.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Voice Vote.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Voice Vote.
Amendment SP 2641 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
Amendment SP 2641 proposed by Senator Breaux for Senator Levin.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (CR S14668-14670)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10614-10618)
Mr. McCloskey moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 417.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. H. Rept. 103-769.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. H. Rept. 103-769.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee in the Nature of a Substitute.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Civil Service.
Referred to the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Feb 6, 2024. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2970 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2970 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2970 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2970 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.