Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor, as I often do, to speak about the efforts of whistleblowers. Many of you know my belief in and my respect for those patriotic people--men and women who, often at great cost to their own careers and personal well-being, raise their voices when they see things happening they know are wrong, usually against the law or the misuse of taxpayer money. So it was with great joy that I participated just last Thursday with about two dozen whistleblowers and hundreds of their families, friends, and supporters in the first annual congressional celebration of National Whistleblowers Day.

In my remarks to that group, I said that agency leadership needs to follow the example my colleagues and I set with the Whistleblower Protection Caucus. They need to send a strong signal that whistleblowers are valued and that retaliation will not be tolerated. After all, the need to protect whistleblowers is not new and it is not going away.

In the midst of the whistleblowers appreciation day celebration, I received yet another harsh reminder that retaliation is alive and well in the executive branch's bureaucracies. At the very time several of my colleagues and I shared our appreciation for whistleblowers, U.S. Marshals Service whistleblowers told me the hunt was on for folks in that agency who disclosed wrongdoing to my office.

How ironic, as we recognized the bravery and the benefits of whistleblowers in the past, a new set of
truthtellers were facing harsh consequences that all too often come with their brave action in exposing wrongdoing.

Agencies use many pretexts to hunt, to punish, and to intimidate whistleblowers. So what is the pretext the Marshals Service is using? I am told the Marshals Service has launched an internal affairs investigation to find what they describe as a leak to the media and what harm a leak to the media does.

Well, this is a dubious claim. For one, news stories about the problems at the Marshals Service are not new. Second, there are many stories in several different magazines and newspapers that strongly suggest there are many sources of those news leaks.

Finally, I understand the Marshals Service internal affairs has allegedly seized the personal property of at least one of its so-called targets. I also understand this personal property contains privileged communications with the target's attorneys and protected disclosures to Members of Congress.

I wish to note some things for leaders at the Marshals Service and at any Federal agency. First, protection for whistleblowers under the Whistleblowers Protection Act is not just there for reporting to Congress or reporting to the inspector general or reporting to the Office of Special Counsel. The Supreme Court has said disclosures to media may be covered if the disclosure is not specifically prohibited by statute or Executive order, even if such disclosure violates an agency rule.

So not only does this investigation appear to be retaliatory, but its supposed justification is obviously not legitimate.

Second, even if there were nothing suspicious or retaliatory about the so-called investigation, it cannot be true that investigators need protected and privileged material to carry it out.

Third, the recent track record of the Marshals Service on whistleblower protection is pretty dismal. The internal affairs inquiry follows months of investigation by Congress, the inspector general, and the Office of Special Counsel into allegations of misconduct at the U.S. Marshals Service. It also follows at least two inaccurate and misleading responses from the Marshals Service and the Justice Department to letters from my committee. And it follows numerous letters reporting allegations of widespread retaliation and very deep fears that employees have of such reprisal.

Just so we are very clear, over 60 current and former U.S. Marshals Service employees have made disclosures to my office since March. That is over 1.1 percent of the agency. Many of the reports include allegations that the Marshals Service frequently uses internal affairs investigations as mechanisms for reprisal. Reprisal for what, one might ask--for engaging in activities that are explicitly protected by law.

Multiple whistleblowers from all across the Marshals Service have also told me that internal affairs does whatever it can to charge employees with misconduct, regardless of what the evidence actually says. So I thought the Justice Department would understand why I have concerns about this investigation and about the way the marshals are apparently handling it.

Remarkably, the Justice Department has told me that is all none of my business, and, of course, I strongly disagree. When you hear these sorts of things once or twice, there is a bit of a problem. When you hear them more than 60 times, coming directly to my office in less than 5 months, you start to understand there is a pattern out there.

From where I sit, it seems to me the best thing for the agency to do is to get some outside input into this so-called investigation. The Department should be willing to work with me, other Members of Congress, the inspector general, and the Office of Special Counsel to ensure that whistleblower rights are fully protected as the law intends. But officials won't even sit down and talk to us about it.

Senator Leahy and I sent a joint letter to the Attorney General last Friday asking for a briefing as soon as possible. The answer? They claimed it would be inappropriate to discuss it with the two of us.

I will tell you what would be inappropriate: using internal administrative inquiries to hunt down whistleblowers and stiff-arm a congressional scrutiny. That is what would be inappropriate.

If the Justice Department and the Marshals Service think I am going to go away or give up on this, they are even less competent than I fear.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source