I just got the press release from the Union of Concerned Scientists: Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed a whistleblower bill (H.R. 985; PDF) that lays out explicit protections for scientists in government who expose abuses. The UCS release (for which I do not have a link) notes some interesting details when it comes to how people voted and how this debate went down on the floor:
The bill passed by a 331 to 94 vote, with 229 Democrats and 102 Republicans voting in favor.
Hmm...partisanship on this issue clearly remains a significant factor, although the picture is not uncomplicated.
The House soundly rejected an amendment from Rep. Bill Sali (R-Idaho) that would have stripped all protections for scientists from the legislation. Instead, the legislators included an amendment by Rep. Bart
Stupak (D-Mich.) giving scientists the right to present their research at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.
Stripped all protections for scientists from the legislation? That must have been a fun position for Sali to defend....
As I noted in a recent talk at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, during the last session of Congress, whistleblower protections for scientists were included as part of an ambitious, omnibus scientific integrity bill. This Congress, however, the strategy has been to move them through separately. I suspect that more scientific integrity legislation will be coming, though--whether in the form of another omnibus bill or, as in the current case, in smaller pieces.
We can also expect another scientific integrity hearing, apparently on Monday. I'll be there.
P.S.: Here's Henry Waxman's committee press release on the whistleblower legislation.
- Log in to post comments
If you want to see just how much a fun position it was for Sali to defend, I tracked down and transcribed the relevant section from Congressional Record. Sali gets rebutted by Bruce Braley (D-IA) and receives support from Darrell Issa (R-CA).
More on Sali here
http://idablue.blogspot.com/2006/04/bill-sali-is-idiot-says-bruce-newco…
Not to offend anyone in my once former home; but damn. Stupid is as stupid does.
Mr. Brown was a GS-1230, Grade 13 step 7, Senior Chemist who worked a tour of duty for a fellow chemist who had a death in his family. Mr. Brown step in and took a 24 hour/7 day/week tour of duty on top of his regular 40 hour/week tour of duty. The hotline tour required Mr. Brown to answer questions from US. Customs field inspectors fed to him through US Customs sector at odd hours of the night and day. The Weapon of Mass Destruction hotline was started after 9/11 to stop WMDs from entering the U.S.A.
Mr. Brown was award for his service by a joint management and employee committee (JIC) but US
Customs management made sure Mr. Brown never would receive his reward for his work.
From: TRACY L COLEMAN
To: REBECCA CANOYER/NE/USCSCUSTOMS
cc: CARSON A WATTS@USCUSTOMS,
CECIL I CLEMENT@USCUSTOMS,
IRA S REESE/NE/USCS@USCUSTOMS
Subject: Re: position description
That's fine. Delete it from the list. Make sure before you do that his wife has no knowledge of it. We certainly do not want another complaint for retaliation.
Tracy Coleman Human Resources Specialist phone: (202) 927-265X
From: REBECCA CANOYER
To: TRACY L COLEMAN/NE/USCS@USCUSTOMS,
IRA S REESE/NE/USCS@USCUSTOMS 09/24/03 04:09 PM
cc: CARSON A WATTS@USCUSTOMS,
CECIL I CLEMENTS@US CUSTOMS
Subject: Re: position description
Tracy -
1. Woody will fire someone if the Brown award goes through.
2. The award has not yet been approved. It has to be approved by Ira according to the contract.
3. I understand what you are saying it's the same concept as vetting. Employees can't be promoted to the 14 level (I believe) if there is an outstanding disciplinary action. And, we can argue that he admitted being deficient in an area of expertise that he was supposed to have.
4. We are definitely not going to give Mr. Brown an award.
Rebecca