I 
115TH CONGRESS 
2D SESSION 
H. R. 7032 
To amend the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 
to enhance protections for individuals who hold a security clearance 
and who are subject to whistleblower retaliation, and for other purposes. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
OCTOBER 5, 2018 
Mr. GOHMERT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
A BILL 
To amend the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention 
Act of 2004 to enhance protections for individuals who 
hold a security clearance and who are subject to whistle-
blower retaliation, and for other purposes. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Adam S. Lovinger 
Whistleblower Reprisal Act of 2018’’. 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 
The Congress finds the following: 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
23:15 Oct 12, 2018
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H7032.IH
H7032
pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
(1) United States Government employees and 
contractors who properly and lawfully report gross 
mismanagement; gross waste of public funds; viola-
tion of law, rule, or regulation; abuses of authority; 
or substantial and specific dangers to public health 
or safety further the interests of good governance 
and provide a valuable service to the American pub-
lic. 
(2) Despite efforts in recent years to protect 
whistleblowers—specifically, Presidential Policy Di-
rective 19 and the codification of certain provisions 
of the Directive at section 3001(j) of the Intelligence 
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004—re-
taliatory denial, suspension, or revocation of security 
clearance remains a very real threat for whistle-
blowers. Government officials can wield this threat 
with impunity due to the lack of defined penalties 
for misusing the security clearance system. 
(3) Because those found to have engaged in un-
lawful whistleblower reprisal are often senior agency 
officials, and because punishment for such mis-
conduct is, under current law, both undefined and 
exclusively within the discretion of agency manage-
ment officials, the retaliator often goes unpunished 
while the whistleblower is left to pick up the pieces 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
23:15 Oct 12, 2018
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H7032.IH
H7032
pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
of his or her career, livelihood, and reputation, often 
after months or years without a paycheck. 
(4) Defining penalties for unlawful whistle-
blower reprisal in the form of suspension, denial, or 
revocation of a security clearance, or the rec-
ommendation, threat, or furtherance of the same, 
places those contemplating misusing the security 
clearance system on notice that such behavior will 
not be tolerated, serves as a strong deterrent to un-
lawful retaliation, and ensures appropriate con-
sequences are implemented when necessary. The 
Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, which covers 
all reprisal except that pertaining to security clear-
ances, has for many years done precisely that. The 
lack of penalty congruence between the Whistle-
blower Protection Act and section 3001(j) of the In-
telligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 
2004, is inexplicable, unwarranted, and remedied by 
this Act. 
(5) This Act recognizes that the suspension, de-
nial, or revocation of security clearance often has an 
even more insidious impact on a whistleblower than 
other forms of retaliation due to the inherent stigma 
of national security risk it carries. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
23:15 Oct 12, 2018
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H7032.IH
H7032
pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS