Protect the whistle-blowers

Were it not for the disclosures of Rick Piltz of the White House Climate Change Science Program, the public might never have known that Bush administration appointees, including an oil industry lobbyist, altered the conclusions of the country's top scientists in order to subvert concern over global warming.

Pilz is one of thousands of whistleblowers who help make our government more accountable. These everyday heroes are the men and women willing to put their careers on the line in order to expose fraud, corruption and abuses of power. Congress and the public owe them a lot, but the least we owe them are some sturdy protections against retaliation.

However, the law that ostensibly does that, the Whistleblower Protection Act, is no longer serving its initial purpose. Primarily due to a series of corrosive legal rulings, the protections of the WPA have been whittled away to almost nothing.

According to the Government Accountability Project, a nonpartisan organization devoted to protecting whistleblowers, in the last 13 years whistleblowers have suffered a 2-to-183 losing streak before the one federal appellate court to which they may appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit exclusively considers the appeals of administrative rulings, and it has been actively hostile to whistleblowers.

In response, Congress, by large bipartisan majorities, has just passed new whistleblower protections. The House passed its bill 331 to 94 and the Senate passed a similar version by unanimous consent. Now a conference committee needs to be convened to reconcile the measures.

Among its numerous provisions, the legislation would end the monopoly of the Federal Circuit, allowing all federal circuit courts to hear whistleblower appeals. It would also clarify that a whistleblower who makes any lawful disclosure of misconduct qualifies for legal protection.

Current court precedents have punched so many loopholes into the law that whistleblowers who first alert a co-worker, rather than someone with authority to solve the problem, are deemed ineligible for protection. Also, anyone who corroborates a whistleblower's charges is not protected from subsequent retaliation, since they are not the original whistleblower.

The loopholes are too numerous to list, but the new legislation would finally close most of them. The House version is stronger than the Senate bill, and, as much as possible, that's the version that should prevail in conference. The White House, of course, has threatened to veto the measure.

If there is a veto, Congress should override it. It takes great personal courage to potentially sacrifice one's career to expose wrongdoing. Now Congress needs to demonstrate a little political courage of its own by protecting those who are willing to come forward on the public's behalf.

Here's how Tampa Bay representatives voted on the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act:

Gus Bilirakis, R-Palm Harbor - Yes

Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Brooksville - Yes

Adam Putnam, R-Bartow - No

C.W. Bill Young, R-Indian Shores - No

Vern Buchanan, R-Sarasota - Yes

Kathy Castor, D-Tampa - Yes

[Last modified January 2, 2008, 20:57:32]