White House Says VETO for Whistleblower Protection

And of course, it is obviously to save their own embarrassment and possible criminal conviction of many in our Government, elected and un-elected, and that would just be too shameful for our Country (oh yeah, and its also to "protect certain US Business Interests" although I wonder if a majority of the citizens benefit from this "business protection" or if its the people with the money (DUH!)). I received this email from Sibel, and it is basically a statement issued by the Executive Office of the President Office of Management and Budget, stating all these unconvincing reasons why they disagree with the material of the bill and states that "senior advisers to the President will recommend a veto" which is basically a confirmation of a veto. Here is the text, in full:

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503



March 13, 2007

(House)

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

H.R. 985 – Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007

(Rep. Waxman (D) CA and 24 cosponsors)



The Administration supports accountability and transparency in the
implementation of Federal programs. However, the Administration
strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 985 because it could compromise
national security, is unconstitutional, and is overly burdensome and
unnecessary. Rather than promote and protect genuine disclosures of
matters of real public concern, it would likely increase the number of
frivolous complaints and waste resources. If H.R. 985 were presented
to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the
bill.



H.R. 985 would expand, for the first time, whistleblower protections
to employees at national security agencies who disclose classified
information to Congress. H.R. 985 would permit an employee to make an
individualized determination – without further review and perhaps
without all relevant information – to disclose classified information.
Such an independent, uncoordinated decision to disclose classified
information could jeopardize not only national security programs, but
also the security of the people involved in such programs. The
President now has the necessary authority to control the circumstances
under which others receive classified and national security
information to ensure such information is not disclosed or used in a
way that would jeopardize national security. By vesting subordinate
Executive branch officials with a right to disclose classified
information outside of the Executive branch without receiving official
authorization from the President or his official designee, the bill
would impede the President's necessary coordination function. In
addition, in any litigation concerning a whistleblower, if the
government invokes the state secrets privilege, H.R. 985 would require
that the matter at issue be resolved in favor of the plaintiff. This
essentially would require the agency to choose between protecting
national security information in court or conceding lawsuits.
Finally, H.R. 985 would allow administrative and judicial review of
Executive branch security clearance determinations, a prerogative that
must be within the Executive branch's discretion for the protection of
national security programs and personnel.



The expanded definition of protected disclosures in H.R. 985 also
would upset the delicate balance between whistleblower protection and
the ability of Federal managers to manage the workforce by permitting
employees to bring a whistleblower complaint in response to almost
every adverse employment action. The existing protections guaranteed
by the Whistleblower Protection Act are sufficient to promote and
protect genuine disclosures of matters of public concern by offering
protection from adverse personnel actions to employees who report
government wrongdoing to those in a position to remedy the problem.
The proposed expansive definition has the potential to convert any
disagreement over an issue or contrary interpretation of a law between
employees, no matter how trivial or frivolous, into a whistleblower
disclosure. The proposed expansive definition also would permit
employees to impede legitimate investigations (even those by
Inspectors General) by arguing that such investigation itself was an
adverse action against the whistleblower. Instead of providing
further protection to those with legitimate claims, who are covered by
the existing law, the proposed definition likely will increase the
number of frivolous claims of whistleblower reprisal, compromise
legitimate investigations into wrongdoing, and create protections for
disgruntled employees whose jobs would not otherwise be secure.



H.R. 985 also would permit employees to engage in judicial forum
shopping in having their claims resolved. Whistleblowers already have
the right to seek corrective action for an unlawful personnel action
from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and are afforded judicial
review before the Federal Circuit. H.R. 985 would allow employees to
have their claims heard de novo in any federal district court, which
could result in two trials (rather than one) for each employee's
complaint, and might result in divergent local district court
interpretations and split circuit court decisions.



* * * * *


Well, Mr. President, may I ask if you and your Administration so disapprove of this bill, but you do support Whistleblower protection and Government transparency (which, I'm not sure if you've been notified, but your Administration has been the MOST non-transparent Administration in history, especially when it comes to National Security Whistleblower Sibel Edmond's case, who has been gagged with a state secrets gag order an unprecedented THREE times), then I ask that you and your Administration get in a little meeting and draw up COMPREHENSIVE National Security Whistleblower Protection as well as increased Government Transparency Bill, and release it for all of us to see who are pretty well informed of your antics in these issues, as well as other Professionals, and see if it musters up (I'm very doubtful though, but the offer is there).