National Whistleblower Appreciation Day

The following was part of the Chuck Grassley (R-IA) "Here's the Scoop" Newsletter. I'd like to see more then an 'appreciation day' for whistle-blowers, but it's nice to see a member of congress speak so highly (and rationally) about these individuals.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

It was February 19, 1777. The seeds of democracy were just taking root in America. Aboard the warship Warren, 10 sailors who were putting their lives on the line to help win America’s independence also determined it was their patriotic duty to blow the whistle on wrongdoing.

Understanding that reporting misconduct against their commanding officer would put their careers and good names at risk, the sailors plunged into uncharted waters. With no legal protection or court precedent to shield themselves against reprisal, these brave men ultimately became what we believe to America’s first whistleblowers.

The commander-in-chief of the Continental Navy sought retaliation and filed a criminal libel suit against two of the whistleblowers. The Continental Congress authorized legal expenses and full release of government records to enable the sailors to defend themselves in court.

Fast-forward 200-plus years, and it’s clear America owes generations of whistleblowers a debt of gratitude. While Congress has the constitutional authority to conduct oversight, trillions of tax dollars are sprinkled among some 2,000 federal departments, agencies, commissions and bureaus.

Thanks to the eyes and ears of citizens who have witnessed, investigated and reported waste, fraud and abuse occurring under their very noses, the federal government is forced to run a tighter ship and work harder to protect the integrity of government services and programs funded by taxpayers.

As a longstanding champion of whistleblowers, I have secured legislative protections and financial incentives to encourage private citizens to come forward with information that strengthens good governance, accountability and stewardship of tax dollars. Since passage of my 1986 whistleblower updates to the federal False Claims Act, the federal government has recovered more than $30 billion that otherwise would be lost to fraud.

Whether it’s ripping off the taxpaying public or ignoring the rule of law, whistleblowers stand on the front lines of defense to root out misconduct.

Inside government, too often, federal agencies try to suppress information, shoot the messenger or stonewall efforts for full disclosure and transparency. Landmark updates were enacted earlier this year to permanently extend protections for whistleblower communications with Congress and internal agency watchdogs.

Without the good work of whistleblowers, Congress would be less able to identify and solve mismanagement and fraud.

Since the earliest days of our republic, whistleblowers have stuck their necks out for the public good. Instead of looking the other way, they risk it all for the good of their country.

Consider whistleblowers at:

• the Department of Defense who exposed a too cozy relationship between defense contractors and the Pentagon. Remember the $700 toilet seat?

• the FBI who exposed a culture of intimidation and mismanagement, including Dr. Frederic Whitehurst who revealed flawed forensic science at its crime lab that undermined the integrity of our criminal justice system.

• the FDA who exposed potential conflicts of interest between drug companies and the public interest, alleging the agency was caving to companies seeking regulatory approval.

• the ATF who exposed the flawed gun-walking program known as “Operation Fast and Furious.”

The list cuts across the entire spectrum of Washington’s alphabet soup. From the GSA to HUD and the IRS, both private and public sector whistleblowers let the sun shine in on wrongdoing.

One week after the sailors’ petition was presented to Congress 236 years ago, lawmakers passed a resolution that encouraged all citizens to expose misconduct.

On July 30, 1778, the Continental Congress enacted the nation’s first-ever whistleblower legislation.

“Resolved that it is the duty of all persons in the service of the United States … to give the earliest information to Congress or any other proper authority of any misconduct, frauds or misdemeanors committed by any persons in the services of these states, which may come to their knowledge.”

In salute to our nation’s truth-tellers who in good faith and accordance to federal law come forward with information to uphold the people’s business and hold government to account, I authored a resolution that passed the Senate designating July 30, 2013, as “National Whistleblower Appreciation Day.”

Whistleblowers are pivotal pieces of the oversight puzzle. Their work ensures that our system of checks and balances operates effectively. I’ve asked Presidents to host a Rose Garden ceremony to honor these truth-tellers. Nobody has taken me up on the suggestion. It would do a lot of good to show these courageous Americans that, by telling the truth, they are continuing an important legacy to keep America strong. Let’s honor the whistleblowers who have helped change the course of history for the better.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Track this simple resolution as it passes the senate and moves to the house here.

Another Scandal, Did Anyone Notice?

While the nation continues its non-discussion discussion about the Zimmerman trial, congress continues to be hard at work proving that Washington is dysfunctional and untrustworthy. I suppose you have to un-hide some dirty laundry before you have a chance to clean it, but something tells me that these revelations will go right back into the hamper before you know it.

Today's big secret was the response that my Senator Chuck Grassley received from the Treasury Department, in response to a written request for information, the Treasury department has admitted for the first time that since 2006, confidential tax records of several political candidates and campaign donors were improperly scrutinized by government officials.

Finding some space in his calendar between not voting on any white house appointees and not disclosing his own financial records for the sake of public information, Senator Grassley wrote another letter to Eric Holder, asking to explain why the Justice Department chose not to prosecute any of the cases. The Iowa Republican told The Washington Times that the IRS “is required to act with neutrality and professionalism, not political bias.” 

The good Senator has given Mr. Holder and the Justice Department until July 26th to respond to his call for legal action against those who, you know, broke the law. Of course well have to wait and see if this Justice Department raises a finger to uphold said laws, or if they will simply decree that this is a political attack and ignore it.

If I sound just a little jaded about the entire system, it's because I'm very jaded and can't compose myself in the manner that I would like to anymore. Everything is politically motivated. Senator Grassley even said in his letter that he would like to know what group(s) the 4th individual was associated with so the American people can determine if this was politically motivated or not. Nothing like accusing the other side of political motivations to place a haze over your own political motivations.

When you get to the point where it is proven that your government is gathering data on you, building profiles about you based on your behavior, can kill American citizens without any due process, uses almost every branch of government as a political tool, and then we, as a populace do not hold them accountable. I refer you back to our last attempt to through a congress with a 21% approval rating at the time of the election. We re-elected over 90% of them.

So this is my open letter to Senator Grassley and Eric Holder. Prove to me that you give a d@mn. Restore my faith in this country, cause right now it is waning. I find myself rooting for the Mannings and the Snowdens and rooting against the Grassleys and the Holders. I would start by not having so many laws on the books that are used to hide the secret laws on the books, to stop acting like a hero when you seek the truth and then seek out those who know the truth like they are villains. To be candid when the facts don't lead them to where you want them to go, and to admit it when you are wrong on premise, rather then defend yourselves by finding the insignificant loopholes. And lastly, to just be a little humble that 7 out of 8 Americans think you are bad at your job, yet you still have a job at all. 

Practice what you Preach

Readers of this blog know that I can be critical  of the representatives of my home state, Iowa. But, this week I'm quite proud of my Senator Chuck Grassley, not for any specific action taken this week, rather for an amendment to a bill he presented years ago during the now infamous Affordable Care Act debate.

The Grassley Amendment in the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) legislation that ensured that the government could not offer members of the House and Senate and their staffs any insurance plans but those created by the bill or those that were part of the exchanges set up in association with it. A simple exercise in practicing what you preach. If Congress, acting at the behest of President Obama, was going to shove this unpopular idea down the throats of an unwilling nation, those involved in making the law were going to have to live with it the same as the rest of the country. Fast forward three years later when there are only six months remaining before this provision goes into effect, it appears a new bipartisan consensus has emerged in  Congress, I'll pause here for you to get back up in your chair after being blown away by that little factoid... good? OK. It appears that nobody in Congress wants any part in participating in the nationally mandated program

Though Democrats have berated the House Republicans over more than a few dozen attempts to repeal the act,many in Washington view the impending deadline with horror since the prospect of being forced into ObamaCare insurance has set off a mass exodus of members and their senior staffs who would rather retire and stay grandfathered into their current insurance programs, touted as being very nice, then be submitted to the same type of rules and regulations that you and I are subject to. As Politico reports, there could be a surge in resignations before December 31 among congressional staff since doing so will allow representatives, senators and other congressional employees to retain their old federal insurance plans.

This has led the same Democrats who pushed for the passage of ObamaCare to demand that it be changed to let the inhabitants of Capitol Hill off the hook, one such outspoken person was John Larson of Connecticut who seems quite confident that an arrangement will be made to suit their own specific needs and wants without it effecting anyone else who may want the same considerations. But even though Republicans have just as much incentive to want to amend the bill to save their own members and their staffs, their answer should be no. If Congress doesn't want to cope with the far higher costs and poorer coverage that ObamaCare will ensure, they can scrap the entire bill rather than just adding a single paragraph to the already  it to suit their own interests.

If a Democratic like Connecticut’s John Larson, who voted for the legislation probably without reading it, thinks it’s unfair to expect his employees to be put in the same boat as his constituents, then maybe he should rethink the entire measure that he played a pivotal role in passing when his party controlled Congress.

Most Americans, who already think about as much of Congress as a vegan thinks of McDonalds, will shed few tears for the travails of these servants of the masses. Nor will they think the exodus of said members and staff will do the country much harm. But, to be fair, if the kind of turnover really does take place, a void of experienced staffers and veteran politicians could make Capitol Hill an even more dysfunctional place than it already has become. Losing their staffs (who provide much of the expertise and institutional memory of this branch of government) may be a disaster, but Congress must suffer along with the rest of us if they are to retain even a shred of credibility.

Hipocrisy

I recently received my newsletter from Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and am fuming. On almost any other day I would have read these updates and not given them a second thought, but being as he (by which of course I mean his staff) would have written a particular piece within a couple of days of voting to repeal the best parts of the STOCK act, I can't help but feel the hypocrisy dripping of these words like acid from a snarling alien.

The article in question was a boasting of Grassley's co-sponsored "Sunshine Law", written to help 'shed light' on how money gets moved around between pharmaceutical drug makers and doctors, to help ensure that citizens life altering medical decisions be swayed because of money in the pocket from the wallets of large medical companies. This is to help ensure that one citizen receives the same care that someone free of outside sway would receive. Sound familiar? The STOCK act was meant to combat "...the notion that the powerful get to set one set of rules for themselves, and another set of rules for everybody else."

My Senator, and the senator of every American reading this, allowed just that to happen.

When the bill was introduced, Grassley wanted even more officials to fall under it's doctrine. My how the times have changed. Back to my original point, here is an excerpt from why Grassely is so proud of the Sunshine Law;

"The goal of my reform effort is to help inform consumers and patients in all medical fields about financial relationships between drug makers and doctors with uniform disclosure. The public deserves a much better picture of the drug industry’s financial presence in medicine than it has today."

"The legislative reform was driven by my investigative and oversight work that exposed a number of questionable financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies and leading medical research doctors."

The following is a point made to show the seedy underbelly of what happens when people are vested in the success of a federal program. How easily you could swipe out a defense contractor, or any corporate interest that a member of congress owns some stock in with this point.

"The chairman of psychiatry at Stanford University received a federal grant to study a drug, while partially owning as much as $6 million in stock in a company that was seeking federal approval of that drug. After exposure, the federal government removed the individual from the grant."

Let us review the standards here; patients need to know what financial incentives are motivating their doctors, but knowing what financial incentives are motivating your politicians requires a written request that can take months to be responded to and will require significant details and red tape before completion. No blanket public disclosure for congress, that's none of our business apparently. And they seemed so gung-ho about this a little more then a year ago. I say this a lot when talking about my representatives, but I'm just, yet again, disappointed.