OFFICIALS LEGISLATION INTEREST GROUPS PUBLIC STATEMENTS COMMITTEES VETOES

Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007

Date: March 14, 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Issues: Technology and Communication Government Operations Science


WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2007

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and for the exact same reason that my colleague on the other side of the aisle opposes it.

We have a predicament that we are dealing with in this very committee, in the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. We are dealing with global warming. The $2 billion-plus that we spend every year, and scientists like Jim Hansen and others who have been out there saying what they want to freely, the way they want to, and they have done this at a time in which there is an allegation of a problem. Quite frankly, it is amazing that when I Google, I get tens of thousands of hits on a scientist who is talking about why global warming is a threat, why we have to do things quickly, and yet there is some theory that we have stifled science.

By treating science separately in the whistleblower status, we are doing a disservice to every scientist and treating them adversely, separately and differently. This simply wants to return us to a procedure that we had before, one that has worked. In fact, Jim Hansen, who will be before our committee next week, and others have gone through a vetting process and then proceeded to make freely the speeches they wanted to make. There has not been a need for whistleblower. In fact, scientists are free to express their opinions now, and that is appropriate; they can do it under the existing guidelines.

This amendment seeks to return us to what was a functioning system, one in which we supported science, and scientists have been free to say what they want to. There may be edits going up the process that the gentleman on the other side of the aisle objects to, but there were edits under the previous administration.

I urge support of the Sali amendment, recognizing that, in fact, this would be a sword that could cut both ways and the future could be adverse to the very scientists it seeks to assist.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov

arrow_upward