[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Guest Commentary July 5, 2002
Protect Homeland Security Whistleblowers
The Honorable Charles Grassley
The creation of a department to oversee homeland security is a tremendous undertaking for the White House and will face multiple challenges, including overcoming the established agencies' desire for self-preservation and the long-standing interagency turf battles. Regardless of these difficulties, we have no choice but to strengthen our national security, and I appreciate the President's commitment to doing so. If a new Department of Homeland Security is the answer, I'll do everything I can to enhance the effectiveness of this new department. ...
But, I have a number of concerns about the President's proposed legislation. I'm concerned that whistleblowers won't be adequately protected; that the Office of Inspector General won't have sufficient independence to aggressively oversee the department; that the Department will be plagued with redundancies and waste; that information analysis and sharing will be neglected; and that the various infrastructure protection agencies won't have a smooth transition.
Free Newsletter
Get the scoop on important legislation, Congressional action, election updates, hard-hitting political commentary, the latest developments in the War on Terror...and more! Just enter your email address below.
Privacy: Your name and email address will be confidential - never rented, never sold.
Whistleblowers are the key to exposing a dysfunctional bureaucracy. FBI Agent Coleen Rowley is just the most recent in a series of whistleblowers who have revealed bureaucratic inefficiencies and misdeeds in a federal agency. Bureaucracies have an instinct to cover up their mistakes, and that temptation is even greater when they can use a potential security issue as an excuse. This is why it is critical to give adequate whistleblower protections to each and every employee of the new Homeland Security Department, without exception.
I am concerned that the Administration's bill cuts out whistleblower protections for Department of Homeland Security employees. The bill provides that the Secretary of the new Department may create an employee management system different from the traditional federal system, which includes the Whistleblower Protection Act. It uses language similar to that in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which created the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA). The Office of Special Counsel, which administers whistleblower protections, interpreted the TSA language as excepting federal screeners from established federal whistleblower protections. That is why I am introducing a bill to provide whistleblower protections for federal baggage screeners.
I am fearful that the Office of Special Counsel will come up with the same interpretation, since the President's bill contains language very similar to that included in the TSA bill.
I will only be able to support a Homeland Security bill that includes strong and specific protections for whistleblowers. Any bill to create a new agency without whistleblower protections is doomed to foster a culture that protects its own reputation rather than the security of the homeland.
Charles Grassley, a Republican, is a U.S. Senator from Iowa. The above commentary has been adapted from remarks Sen. Grassley made before a hearing of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, June 26, 2002. To contact him, Click Here.
The above column has been distributed by PoliticsOL.com.
