Posted on 07/31/2002 4:39:54 AM PDT by corlorde
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Hours after President Bush signed a law on Tuesday to combat corporate crime, key lawmakers said they were concerned he may be trying to roll back provisions that protect whistle-blowers who come forward with allegations of fraud.
The law, which Bush signed with much fanfare at a White House ceremony, includes provisions protecting employees of publicly traded companies when they take "lawful acts" to assist federal regulators, law enforcement agencies, as well as "any member of Congress or any committee of Congress."
Should a company retaliate against a whistle-blower, the new law would allow the person to file a complaint with the Department of Labor and later bring the matter to federal court. The whistle-blower could be reinstated, receive back pay as well as compensatory damages under the law.
But in a statement that lays out how the administration will interpret certain provisions in the new law, Bush said the protections would apply to those who provide information to congressional committees conducting investigations, but not necessarily individual lawmakers.
"An individual member of Congress does not conduct an investigation," White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan explained.
Key lawmakers said this interpretation could amount to a rollback of what Congress intended in the new law to protect whistle-blowers from retaliation for cooperating with congressional investigations.
"I would hope the administration is not beginning to water down the law within hours of the president's signing it," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat.
FULL PROTECTION
"This is disturbing. Our intention is to protect any whistle-blower who exposes wrongdoing to an individual member of Congress, a congressional committee, a media outlet, or any other public entity," said Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican who co-authored the whistle-blower provisions with Leahy.
"Whistle-blowers need full protection. Otherwise, they won't come forward. Problems won't see the light of day," Grassley added.
Buchan said Bush was "fully committed to this legislation," and that the "technical changes" would in no way weaken protections for whistle-blowers.
As drafted by Leahy and Grassley, Senate aides said the protections would apply to whistle-blowers whether or not there is an active investigation under way by a committee of Congress.
Likewise, they said Congress intended the protections to apply to whistle-blower contacts with individual lawmakers, and not just committees in the midst of an investigation.
"If that is how the administration intends to enforce the new whistle-blower law, that would be a roll back of what Congress intended. The language is clear and the language is plain, that Congress intends full protection of whistle-blowers whether or not an active investigation is underway at the time," said David Carle, Leahy's spokesman.
After watching how the Hill handled Trafficant and the Torch, I am SICK TO DEATH of them ALL, even "ours," and I ma damn sure convinced they are ALL crooks and only care about themselves.
Out with them ALL.
The one characteristic that is most valued on capital hill is loyalty.
Trafficant is very unloyal. He turned on Clinton in the impeachment, then when threatened voted to NOT IMPEACH.
Going back on your word to both parties is very very very dumb. Both parties decided that Trafficant had to go. They had the justice department do him in.
Trafficant is exacly like Linda Tripp. Linda knew what Clinton was doing with Monica. So clinton bribed her with an $89,000 a year job in the Pentagon. You don't think Clinton gave her the promotion from a 40 grand a year secretary to an 89 grand a year executive with out getting her to agree to keep her mouth shut do you? When she went back on the deal, she was toast with both parties. Clinton fired her on the last day of office. Clinton certainly had gotten Bush's assurance Bush would not hire Linda back before he fired her. Clinton would not have fired Linda on one day only to have Bush hire her back the next. As Lyndon Johnson said and American government worker who does not stay bought is toast. Trafficant is a government worker who did not stay bought. The Torch stayed bought. That is the difference.
The situation is very similar with Trafficant and Tripp. Traffie took the goodies from the Democrats for playing ball. Then he stopped playing ball. He played ball with the Republicans. Finally he decided to sell his vote a second time to the highest bidder. The Democrats bid, but that was not the end of their game.
Neither the Democrats and Republicans wanted to start the tradition of politicians that don't stay bought. So they did Traffie in. Traffie is in prison and will stay there.
On the other hand the Democrats need the Torchs vote to stay in control of the Senate. And all the Torch did was take bribes. It is a common Democratic experience. He just managed to get caught. Which is an uncommon Democratic experience. The Torch has been as loyal to the Democrats as was Clinton.
If Clinton had not been a loyal Democrat they would have removed him from office. If the Torch had not been a loyal Democrat they would have removed him from office. Trafficant was not a loyal democrat. He was a Democrat that did not keep his word to either Democrats or Republicans. That will get a congressman or senator put in prison... every time.
The Federal government has some nerve making any statement about fiscal responsibility. The Federal government is the poster child for fiscal irresponsibility. The whole government is beyond auditability. If the federal government were anyone else, most of it's management would be in prison.
---max
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.