PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 13, 2012
Non-Federal Employee Whistleblower Protection Act of 2012 - Repeals and replaces provisions prohibiting reprisals against employees of civilian and defense contractors for disclosing to a federal official information relating to a substantial violation of law related to a public contract.
Prohibits an employee of any non-federal employer receiving covered funds (i.e., a contract, grant, or other payment any portion of which is provided by the federal government) from being discharged, demoted, or discriminated against as a reprisal for initiating or participating in any proceeding related to the misuse of federal funds, reasonably opposing the misuse of federal funds, or disclosing to specified federal agencies or officials information that the employee reasonably believes is evidence of: (1) gross mismanagement of an agency contract or grant relating to covered funds; (2) a gross waste of covered funds; (3) a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or an abuse of authority, related to the implementation or use of covered funds; or (4) a violation of a law, rule, or regulation related to an agency contract, subcontract, or grant relating to covered funds.
Sets forth provisions on: (1) time limitations for determinations by inspector generals on whether to conduct or continue an investigation of a reprisal complaint, (2) access by a complainant to the inspector general's investigative file, (3) the standard of proof for showing the occurrence of a reprisal, (4) agency actions to deny relief or remedy a reprisal, (5) the exhaustion of administrative remedies authorizing civil action by a complainant, and (6) nonenforceability of waivers and arbitration of disputes.
People & committees
Rep. Speier, Jackie [D-CA-12] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. 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.6406 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.6406 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.6406 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.6406 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.