Letter to Barack Obama, President of the United States - Omnibus Bill Signing Statement

Letter

Senator Chuck Grassley has asked President Barack Obama to account for the way his signing statement on the omnibus spending bill this week contradicts promises he made on during the presidential campaign and his pledges to support federal whistleblowers.

"The President's signing statement this week is alarming," Grassley said. "It makes you think that the new era of transparency is over before it began. President Obama shouldn't go back on his word from the campaign trail and do an end run around Congress." Here is a statement made by candidate Obama about presidential signing statements: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAR1S1Mjkc.

Earlier this month, Grassley wrote to Obama to urge him to hold a Rose Garden ceremony honoring whistleblowers. It's an idea that Grassley has long suggested to Presidents as a way to send a message from the top of the bureaucracy on down that whistleblowers deserve rewards, rather than reprisals, for exposing mismanagement and waste, fraud and abuse of tax dollars.

The text of Grassley's letter of protest regarding this week's signing statement is immediately below. Grassley's earlier letter is also below.

The Honorable Barack Obama
White House
1400 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C.

March 13, 2009

Dear Mr. President:

Two weeks ago I wrote you a letter encouraging you to follow through with your campaign promises to strengthen accountability and transparency in Government by hosting a Rose Garden ceremony in honor of whistleblowers. As a longtime champion of whistleblowers, I was encouraged by the many statements you made about the important role whistleblowers play in rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in government programs. However, after reading your signing statement on Wednesday accompanying H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, I now believe that your campaign promises to support federal government whistleblowers ring hollow.

I have reviewed your campaign position papers and statements, and believe your action directly contradicts a number of your campaign promises. For example, you made an emphatic statement that once you were elected you would work to protect whistleblowers and "strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government."[1] You also pledged to "sign legislation in the light of day without attaching signing statements that undermine the legislative intent."[2] Further, in a campaign speech that is available online, you stated your Administration was "not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress."[3] Despite these assurances and promises, your signing statement singled out specific provisions of the legislation and indicated you would interpret them contrary to the intent of Congress.

Specifically, you singled out sections 714(1)-(2) of H.R. 1105 which contains an appropriations rider that Congress has passed in various forms since 1997. This rider has been an important part of appropriations bills for a decade and it is a significant part of Congress' efforts to protect the rights of Federal Government employees to provide information to Congress. The rider states that no appropriation shall be available for the salary of any officer or employee of the Federal Government that "attempts or threatens to prohibit or prevent, any other officer of employee of the Federal Government from having any direct oral or written communication or contact with any Member, committee, or subcommittee of the Congress[.]"[4] This rider sends a powerful message to all agencies and Departments that any effort to block an employee from providing information to Congress will not be tolerated.

I am deeply concerned that the signing statement you issued will undermine this important whistleblower protection included in the Omnibus Appropriations Bill. Not only is your signing statement contrary to your campaign statements, it also goes beyond the traditional broad signing statements authored by previous Presidents. In specifically singling out this provision, you have gutted the legislative intent of this provision by stating that it does not "detract from [your] authority to direct the heads of executive departments to supervise, control, and correct employees' communications with Congress[.]" (emphasis added). This is a shocking statement that acknowledges that you would be willing to give an order preventing employee whistleblowers from making disclosures to Congress. I do not see how this statement can be reconciled with your campaign promise to protect whistleblowers. In fact, it is even more egregious than simply breaking a promise, because it actually restricts current and previously existing whistleblower protections.

Unfortunately, your statement did not stop there. You also added that you would only use this authority if the communications would be "unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential." While this appears to be a limitation on the situations where you would restrict Federal Government employee whistleblower rights, it also signals a potential expansion of the types of "privileged" information that can be withheld from Congress. It appears you are attempting to circumvent the statutes and precedents by which Congress currently has a right to access classified information--including Top Secret information. Moreover, your assertion of the authority to "correct" whistleblowers who provide information that is "otherwise confidential" is undefined and overly broad. It will undoubtedly chill whistleblowers who might otherwise come forward to report waste, fraud, or abuse to Congress.

I have fought hard to protect good faith whistleblowers who do nothing but "commit truth". I've continuously objected to signing statements that have sought to restrict whistleblower protections. For example, I objected to signing statements issued by President Bush that restricted the whistleblower protection provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley law Congress passed in 2002. I also objected to a signing statement issued by President Bush on the reforms contained in the Inspectors General Reform Act of 2008. Whistleblowers deserve strong protections and any effort to limit those protections should be debated openly in Congress for all to see, not done in a signing statement behind closed doors at the 11th hour.

Simply stated, your signing statement on the Omnibus Appropriations Act managed to set back whistleblower protections and violate two promises with one stroke of the pen. Most of all, I'm disappointed that your campaign promises to bring accountability, transparency, and reform to the Federal Government appear to be falling by the way side. I urge you to revisit your signing statement and implement sections 714(1)-(2) of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 in a manner consistent with the spirit and intent of the legislation. I hope that in the future we can work together to provide the American people with the open and transparent government they deserve.

Sincerely,

Chuck Grassley of Iowa

United States Senator

Source