Update: I just wrote a quick blog entry about this at The Huffington Post.
Update 2: Welcome Diggers! First, some folks at Digg were upset this was posted in the "Space" category. Sorry about that; my Digg It button defaults to Space. I’ll see if I can figure out a way around that. Also, the software at Digg didn’t like my "less than" sign in my title, so the title just says "Congress". Ironically, even that isn’t correct; I should have written "House". 
Anyway, I can’t correct it without screwing up all the links, so I’ll leave it as is.
Second, a link I had below to a tally of members of the House went to a specific Congressman’s page. I missed that somehow, so I corrected it.
Did the devil just shiver? Or was that the White House?
The House of Representatives today overwhelmingly passed the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, which would, for the first time, grant federal scientists and contractors the right to expose political interference in their research without fear of retribution. The bill passed by a 331 to 94 vote, with 229 Democrats and 102 Republicans voting in favor.
Yeehaw!
But 94 voted against it. Hmmm. Here’s an interesting little tidbit: not one Democrat voted against this bill. Not one.
All 94 nay votes were from Republicans. All of them.
There are currently 233 Democrats and 202 Republicans in the House. That means 4 Dems abstained, both Independants, and 6 Repubs.
Hmmm.
So this bill had essentially 100% support among Democrats, but only about half of the Republicans.
Hmmm.
Are you a Republican? Did your rep vote against this bill? Maybe you have something to say to them.
Postscript: I went to the House site to find out how many from each party made up Congress. It says:
There are 222 Republicans, 211 Democrats, and two Independents in the House of Representatives. In the Senate, there are 50 Democrats and 49 Republicans and one Independent.
Someone should tell them the election was now 4 months ago, and they should update that. Or did I miss something? I recall the Democrats holding the majority right now.
That was a link to Congressman Fattah’s site; I missed that somehow when I read the page. As commenter Skepted56 pointed out, the website for the Office of the Clerk of the House has it right.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
I called my representative to ask why he voted against it. I’ll post his reply here when I get one.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
My Representative is a Rebublican, and he voted for this bill. They aren’t all evil, Phil, really.
PS: Wayne, you can follow the link in the blog to check how your Rep voted
March 15th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Oops sorry Wayne…I misread your post.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
They aren’t ALL evil, but most of them are
March 15th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
I would hope this will make industry safer too. If whistleblowers were protected in the airline industry, there would be fewer plane crashes — but only from ‘political’ interferance. Well it’s a step in the right direction.
March 15th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Ok… there must be a cultural thing happening here, and because I’m not American, I don’t get it.
How could ANYONE vote against a bill that protects whistleblowers?
Would not even the staunchest Republican conservative want to show that he wants to uphold the constitution, support truth and free speech, and more importantly, give a postive demonstration that he is above graft and backroom dealing? Surely protecting whistleblowers would be such a demonstration
Why would anyone abstain? A first look would make it seem that the abstentions were afraid of voting against it, but if that is the case, then my prior question/observation applies to them as well.
Was there a major contentious clause in the bill? I’ve heard that in the US sometimes your politicians put in weird stuff, tacked on at the end of the bill. So if the Democrats amended the bill with “George Bush gets a wedgie every Thursday at 7 PM” or something, then maybe, I could see.
On the surface, it looks like a whole bunch of people voted against something as obvious as breathing air.
March 15th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Phil,
Thanks for the heads-up on this. Very interesting vote. My congressman (Blunt) was one of the “Nay” votes. Not a big surprise there–he is among the most conservative in the House, I would expect. I sent him an e-mail but I don’t expect to hear anything back.
Your link to the House numbers is on a rep’s page and is probably just out-of-date. You can find the official, updated information at the bottom of this page: http://clerk.house.gov/.
Cheers,
B
March 15th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
The abstainers might just not have been there that day. There is no requirement that every congressman has to be there all the time, nor is there a requirement that they all be there in order for the House to vote. They come and go. The same is true of the Senate. They might have intentionally abstained by not voting, or they just might have been elsewhere that day.
March 15th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
If anybody wants to write, go here: http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Here is what I wrote. Feel free to copy-and-paste or edit as you see fit.
”
I am writing to ask why you voted against this legislation: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll153.xml .
As you might not realize, there has been a tremendous amount of pressure put on scientists involved with the current presidential administration to report results that are favorable to the administration’s policies. This is not how science works and scientific results should be published and scrutinized outside of the influence of politics, regardless of the funding source. If you want spin, contact an advertising agency. Leave politics out of science!
I eagerly await justification for your vote.
“
March 15th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
My rep, who is republican, also voted for it. But then, his election is still in court (he won by only 309 votes) and he may be looking down the road to the next elections. In most of his votes, he’s actually gone against the straight republican line and done a good job of voting the way most people in his district want him to vote (if you go by the polls), something different for this district.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
My district representatives voted right, though Westmoreland was of course a definite “nay”. What else would you expect from a man who can’t list the ten commandments he’s such a fan of.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
don’t be fooled, both houses are still evil EVIL.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
The GOP elephant will keep it’s trunk shut if you feed it peanuts [read lobby funds], The democratic donkey will hee haw and kick when it gets power. Science should never be partisan in this Zoo called Congress.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
“Congress just passed extensive protection for whistleblowers…”
=====
Ahem! The House of Representatives is NOT Congress! Until and unless it also passes the Senate it means very little!
March 15th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
yeah. Congress is what both houses together are referred to as. Senate + House = Congress. As in, holding a congress.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I live in one of the most conservative states in the union. I live in the most conservative district in the state. Because of some serious gerrymandering a few years back, we were given a Democrat as our representative. Unfortunately for the gerrymanders (as the beaver…. sorry couldn’t help it) he’s quite popular, and has survived re-election.
He voted YAY. Lets not talk about the other two.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
TAW said : “They aren’t ALL evil, but most of them are ”
Actually, no! According to these numbers 102 voted in support while only 94 voted against! That makes only %46.5 of them evil! %50.5 are ‘not evil’ (no politician is actually ‘good’) and %3 are ‘grey area’.
Note: I am registered as a Republican… but that’s only because they don’t have “Disgusted with freaking everybody” as a choice.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Um…Phil…
I know that every time someone accuses you of being “anti-republican,” you get up in arms. But posts like this seem to confirm what they think.
While you didn’t state this outright, the implications that you left to the reader makes one think that anybody who voted against this bill is anti-whistleblower and therefore anti-science. Back up the thought-train and realize that there’s a really, really big jump built in there!
I’ll agree that I’m not sure why someone would oppose this bill — but I haven’t looked at it yet. From the looks of it, nor have you (or anyone that’s posted a comment here, for that matter). Before you go bonkers on this bill, you might want to do a bit of research beyond trying to prove the stupidity of Republicans.
I admit that those that opposed this bill may be outright idiots — but find out why before passing judgement.
– Doug
March 15th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
True enough about the House != Congress. I’m not sure if there is a Senate version. I’ll wait and see before I edit the title and content though. It might be correct eventually.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
To bad you have idiots running for President.
If Hilary does become President, then we’ll all be nuked.
“PEACE PLZ!! PLZ!?!? PLZZZZZ??!”
I recall a bunch of Democrats in the street the other shouting out, “SAVE THE WATER!” It was hilarious. :p
March 15th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
FWIW - here’s a link to a copy of the Bush administration’s objections to the Whistleblower Protection Enablement Act. Without reading more about the act itself, I have no idea if any of the complaints are justified:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/19600
March 15th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
“I know that every time someone accuses you of being “anti-republican,†you get up in arms. But posts like this seem to confirm what they think.”
Well, if someone is against anti-scientific legislation, they will often find themselves at odds with the Republicans. People who identify with the party can be pro-science, but so long as they are a silent constituency, the Republican party will continue to find itself at odds with many scientists. Currently they’re courting Evangelicals so apparently they don’t want the science vote, sorry, but they can’t have everyone love them.
I think the BA is simply trying to get sensible Republicans to apply peer pressure.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Um… Doug…
I’m most likely older than most of the posters here, and I can tell you that I HAVE voted for my share of Republicans in my day. I voted for them because they were in agreement with my values and ideas. I have not voted for a few Democrats because those in question came across to me as dumber than a box of hair.
That being said, I could not vote for the majority of what passes for GOP these days. Most seem to me to be anti-science, and worse, anti-intellectual. Most come across to me as being unashamed of being in the pockets of creationist and the anti stem cell crowd.
Maybe your right, and there is some deep seated reason for voting against this bill that we have not seen yet, but going on recent history, put my money on those who voted Nay have something to hide.
Sorry, I usually have more jokes in my post.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Doug, I could (and should have) have mentioned that a Republican rep wanted to strip out of the bill all the support for scientific whistleblowers. That might have made the anti-Republican stance more supportable… but in fact it makes it clearer that it’s a definite partisan issue when it comes to letting people blow a whistle and be protected.
I am not anti-Republican. I am anti-anti-science. If the Dems had been 100% opposed to the bill, I would have said so. But that’s an empty promise; the Republicans for the most part have been the ones stomping on science for the past few years. This is simply a fact.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
I read the president’s criticisms and they do not seem valid. If the bill was aimed at releasing classified information to the public, that would be a problem. But congress, at least certain committees, is supposed to have access to classified information so they can use that information to make legislative decisions. If the president was hiding information from congress I would want them to know about it. I don’t see how this is a national security concern in the slightest. In fact the implication that the president is currently hiding information from congress is worrisome to me.
He also says it is unconstitutional, but cites no constitutional problems with the bill.
Also, his claim that current whistleblower protection is sufficient is patently false. It has been established many times that government scientists are afraid of retialiation for their activities that have nothing to do with national security.
I have found the text of the bill (google search is great):
http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070214164051-26052.pdf
The existing parts of the U.S. code that this amends are scattered around here:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title5/partiii_.html
I read the bill. The president’s statement, assuming that link is correct, is extremely misleading if not downright false. People cannot disclose classified information to any member of congress, they can only do so to members of congress in a few select committees. Committees that, it would seem from their names, should be authorized to see such material. And the claim that people would be able to have the case heard in “any federal court” is misleading, they can only go to the federal court that oversees the region in which the alleged problem occurred. Finally, the claim that any issue involved “state secrets” will automatically be in favor of the claimed whistleblower is false. The Office of the Inspector General must also decide there is at least some merit to the case.
I personally see nothing the least bit objectionable in the bill. I think it is very useful. The president promises to veto it but if things go the same in the senate as in the house than the veto can be easily overruled (there is over a 3/4 majority in the house, only a 2/3 majority is needed to overcome a presidential veto).
March 15th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
I was raised as a Republican and so was predisposed to be sympathetic to that particular cant growing up. But as the party shifted further right and much further into the hands of the Christian Coalition/Pat Robertson anti-science set I found myself disagreeing with almost all of the party’s major policies and initiatives. It seems for the most part the moderate Republican was eradicated sometime in the late 80’s/early 90’s. I haven’t voted for a Republican since. There are certainly beliefs that traditional Republicanism champions that I’m sympathetic too, mostly in the fiscal responsibility area, but that too seems to have largely left the party. This story is just reaffirms what has disgusted me about the party for a very long time now. Phil, good for you for continuing to point these things out to your readers. And if a Democrat ever does anything this foolish please do call them out on it.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
I actually can think of reasons as to why someone would vote against protecting “whistle blowers” and it has nothing to do with being anti-science. I read about half the bill here http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070214164051-26052.pdf (i don’t have time to read the whole thing now.) But if you want to know why republicans it just seems to me to be unnecessary legislation replacing general phrases like “which the employee or applicant believes evidences” (original) to ‘‘, without restriction as to time, place, form, motive, context, or prior disclosure made to any person by an employee or applicant, including a disclosure made in the ordinary course of an employee’s duties, that the employee or applicant reasonably believes is evidence of.” (amendment.)
Now, considering this is just a legal document, that presumably most people aren’t going to read anyways, can anyone give me a reason as to why any court wouldn’t read those two statements as being identical? A violation is a violation and scientists need to report it. Period.
In addition, as best as i can read it this change (in regards to title 5) applies to ALL government employees. So as best i can tell under this law (perjury aside) everything that Scooter Libby did in revealing Valerie Plame is just peachy under this law as long as he thought that there was a violation, which there certainly was in terms of a conflict of interest.
Alls I’m saying is that the implications of this bill seem to go beyond science and are very much related to how you feel about unnecessary legislation so to peg people who vote against it as being anti-science appears, to my reading of this anyways, to be wrong.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
I don’t understand why the Republican rep from Idaho would so strongly draw attention to his (and by extension, his party’s) anti-science stance by wanting an amendment that specifically excluded scientists from whistle-blower protection.
Is he trying for change within the party by pointing out the folly of an anti-science stance or is he just a fool?
March 15th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
The site you link to is the page of one Representative, not the main House site. Here’s the official Congressional Profile from the Office of the Clerk.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
This is another example of why the government should have nothing to do with employing scientists. The government could have way too much control over what scientific views are available to the general public.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
I’ve seen similar sorts of votes numbers on votes for net neutrality. (Democrats voting heavily for net neutrality, and republicans voting is mixed or against net neutrality.)
March 15th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Well, as it happens, I _did_ go and read the bill. You can too — the text is located here: http://www.rules.house.gov/110/text/110th_hr985.pdf
The section that “protects” scientists who blow the whistle on political pressure is one small provision in a very large bill. The main body of the bill is basically a license to speak about any government program, classified or not, issued to any federal employee who “reasonably believes” that the program in question is illegal. The potential for abuse should be obvious.
Unless, of course, you’re one of that group of naive, idealistic fools who believes that a government can actually function in today’s world without keeping some things secret.
March 15th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Hey. I agree. But watch out about a SCIENCE site becoming POLITICAL. Fact and opinion are a spicey combo platter, best thrown out with the e-coli tinged spinach.
March 15th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Here’s a link to a site that provides a summary of the bill and the bill itself,
http://www.whistleblowers.org/
Good luck figuring out what it means.
March 15th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Wolfwalker opined thus:
It has become increasingly apparent over the last few years that the founders of this republic were indeed naive and idealist fools, since they staked their lives on the proposition that the public was competent to rule itself, and that to do so they required unfettered access to information about what their delegates and public servants do and know.
There are certainly circumstances in which information must be closely held, but concealment must generally be viewed with suspicion, sunlight being the best disinfectant, &c.
March 15th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
As near as I can tell when I read the bill it only allows people to blow the whistle on classified information to people within the government who are authorized to see that material, particularly members of particular congressional committees that deal with such things and a couple of government agencies. They are not allowed to make it available to the public. Or at least I saw nothing of that sort in the bill. I see no problem with blowing the whistle on classified information to individuals who have clearance to see that information. I see nothing in the bill that would allow the information to be leaked to the press or the public at large, although if anyone who has read the bill can point out such a passage I will retract this statement.
March 15th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
To paraphrase Churchill, the Democratic Party is certainly the worst major political party in America — except for the other one.
You’re either pro-science, or you’re not. You’re either pro-reality, or you’re not. You’re either pro-reason, or you’re not. It’s very, very simple.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Here were the numbers of members in the House from B’s link.
233
Democrats
201
Republicans
0
Independent
1
Vacancies
The list of who voted for and against says “not voting” rather than “abstaining”. There is a difference. With 434 members, I’m not too bothered there were a couple people not there. Especially if the vote wasn’t close.
Thank goodness my Republican Congressman (Reichert) voted for it. He has a terrible voting record on everything else. Maybe I’ll even write an email praising the vote. I have written more than a few negative emails to the guy.
March 16th, 2007 at 3:02 am
Thanks to those providing the link to the full text of the bill.
March 16th, 2007 at 3:52 am
Oversimplifying an argument is not a valid scientific approach.
The original post, and anyone who’s drawing large conclusions based on one narrow provision within a huge bill is oversimplifying the argument.
Oversimplified arguments get people to cheer on “Oprah” or in circus debate shows, but do very little to change anything.
If you really care, read the bill. If an action to take is crystal clear after reading the bill, take it.
Otherwise, you’re cheering on “Oprah” or worse taking action based on partial information.
March 16th, 2007 at 5:24 am
“As near as I can tell when I read the bill it only allows people to blow the whistle on classified information to people within the government who are authorized to see that material…”
(I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but) The problem is the potential for that classified material to become public if the whistle-blowing turns into a court matter.
Not that some classifed things shouldn’t, but the need to balance “state secrets” and an open whistle-blowing policy will most likely end up with a lot of out-of-court settlements.
If this bill relaxes things too greatly, and over-includes too much potentially classified areas, then the smallest grievance could snow-ball into a hefty settlement. The potential for abuse there is large.
It’s not that the ideal isn’t a good one, it seems that the best way to enhance the laws that we already have is a delicate one.
March 16th, 2007 at 5:29 am
Gee, coincidence that the errant Rep/Dem/Ind tally that BA linked to was on a Democratic reps site? Looks like they’re still having a hard time getting their facts straight…
As a current US federal employee, I can think of several cases where people have made frivolous and misinformed attempts at “whistleblowing” and bypassing the chain of command trying to right perceived wrongs. The presumption that everyone above you is malicious and untrustworthy is fallacious (they’re self-interested, certainly, but that’s not the same…), and NOT reporting things properly, anonymously whining to some 800 number, stirring up hate and discontent, is the lazy and wasteful way of managing both real and perceived problems.
It is not easy to balance the need for legitimate whistleblowing against the need to control wasteful weeniewhistleblowing. Those who voted against this modification to US Code probably felt that the bill didn’t do a very good job of addressing that problem.
March 16th, 2007 at 6:25 am
digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!! digg suXX!!!
March 16th, 2007 at 6:37 am
[…] Congress Quote: Did the devil just shiver? Or was that the White House? Congress just passed extensive […]
March 16th, 2007 at 6:53 am
[…] read more | digg story No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> […]
March 16th, 2007 at 7:01 am
At one time I felt I was a Republican … Reagan, George the First … but “we” seem to have lost our way.
I believed Republicans under Gingrich made steps toward balancing the budget, and kept Clinton’s spending under control.
What the $*#( happend? I can’t get far enough away from Republicanism today. “They” are breeding religious wars in the Mid-east, spending like there’s no tomorrow, and the deficit under “W” …
And then there’s science. Stem cell research. Global warming. Heck, we’re almost to the point of declaring that the earth is the center of EVERYTHING again.
Thank God Michigan has a rep (Stupak) who is pushing a little in the correct direction. He’s not in my district, but I’ll take it… He’s a Democrat, but I’m beginning to consider changing my ways…
BTW: My rep, Knollenberg, voted against the bill. He’s also got a billboard on the freeway slamming California’s Schwarzeneggers efforts to begin increasing fuel economy. It’d hurt Detroit’s auto industry a little more if they have to stop selling 12mpg gas guzzling SUV’s - as if $3/gallon gas didn’t send a message the past few years…
March 16th, 2007 at 7:02 am
Wolfwalker said Unless, of course, you’re one of that group of naive, idealistic fools who believes that a government can actually function in today’s world without keeping some things secret.
Of course the government needs to keep secrets. As a former soldier with a Top Secret clearance, I both fully understand and will defend the governments right and need to keep certain programs and activities secret. However, the government does not have the right to break its own laws. Any part of the government that does break its own laws should be duly prosecuted. And should not expect to be able to break the laws it wishes just because that illegal program has a clearance. “If the cops didn’t see it, I didn’t do it” is not a good philosophy for an individual, but it’s downright disastrous for a government.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:02 am
Bad Jim said:
“It has become increasingly apparent over the last few years that the founders of this republic were indeed naive and idealist fools, since they staked their lives on the proposition that the public was competent to rule itself, and that to do so they required unfettered access to information about what their delegates and public servants do and know.”
The founders did not believe the general public was competent enough to rule itself. The Senate was not elected popularly until the 20th century, rather indirectly through the state legislatures. The President is still indirectly elected through the electoral college. The supreme court, therefore, was nominated by and indirectly elected president and confirmed by an indirectly elected senate. So, of the 3 branches of government created by the founders, half of 1 (HoR) was a popularly, directly elected body.
I won’t put in my own 2 cents on whether this system was/is right or not or if the second part of your statement (on free and total access) was right, but ignorance of the origins of the constitution and the founders is one of my pet peeves.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:04 am
“The problem is the potential for that classified material to become public if the whistle-blowing turns into a court matter.”
That is why the bill says that such information only has to be released in a court case if the Office of the Inspector General decides there is some merit to the case. If not then nothing happens.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:36 am
I think it’s funny that this is even an issue. Since when was it acceptable to put partisan political affairs ahead of scientific progress?
March 16th, 2007 at 7:54 am
[…] Filed under: Uncategorized — recar @ 3:41 pm Congress Quote: Did the devil just shiver? Or was that the White House? Congress just passed extensive […]
March 16th, 2007 at 7:56 am
My Congresswoman is the B*tch Jean Schmidt. She voted against it non the less.
Voting against such a bill is TREASON where I come from…
March 16th, 2007 at 8:30 am
CNN:
Sunshine Week, March 11-17, is a three-year-old national initiative led by the American Society of Newspaper Editors. It is intended to open a dialogue about the importance of open government and freedom of information. Participants include print, broadcast and online news media, civic groups, libraries, nonprofits, schools and others.
“What a coincidence that “Sunshine Week” falls on the week that corruption seems to be oozing out of the White House. It started with the Walter Reed scandal; It escalated with the conviction of Cheney’s right hand man, Scooter Libby, and as if that wasn’t enough for one month, there was also the firing of several US attorneys that many are claiming was politically motivated and not based on the attorneys’ performances, as claimed by the administration.”
-Redirected from: http://www.theonlinescribble.com/my_weblog/2007/03/happy_sunshine_.html
March 16th, 2007 at 8:31 am
[…] on the wrong end of reality soon enough. Let the whistles blow.” He continues the thought on his blog with, “There are currently 233 Democrats and 202 Republicans in the House. That means 4 Dems […]
March 16th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Here’s a link that will show you all the Democrats and Republicans, respectively, that voted for or against the bill:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/1/votes/153/
If you click on either “Democratic” or “Republican” it will expand to show you the names of the individual members of Congress and how they voted. Assuming you know the name of your Rep., it should make it easier to let him/her know that he/she is a disgrace.
March 16th, 2007 at 8:56 am
[…] Bastards - Get In Here Now this is the article we will be discussing http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/03/15/congress/ here are the sources from the article to check out for yourself if you feel the need: […]
March 16th, 2007 at 8:59 am
The hardest part for me was not making sense of the Bill (though I haven’t read the whole thing through), but rather finding Title 5 section 2302 to read the context of the changes.
http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=06076119107+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
There are explicit instructions that National Security measures are protected.
Section 2302 (A) (2) (C) states
In other words, the Security Clearance agencies are exempt.
The other big effort seems to be to explicitly state that nondisclosure agreements must conform to and not supercede the rest of the Federal laws regarding disclosure. In other words, they can’t end run disclosure and wistleblower laws by having me sign a document upon hiring that states I agree to be exempt from the laws. That’s important, seeing how I do have to sign an agreement that work products are not my own but the company’s, etc. No patent protection for me, only for the company.
I don’t find the objections credible.
DennyMo, I also know of at least one person prone to abuse whistleblower laws in an attempt to magnify his own importance. I still want the system designed to protect integrity.
Chill Out said:
> But if you want to know why republicans it just seems to me to be unnecessary legislation replacing general phrases like “which the employee or applicant believes evidences†(original) to ‘‘, without restriction as to time, place, form, motive, context, or prior disclosure made to any person by an employee or applicant, including a disclosure made in the ordinary course of an employee’s duties, that the employee or applicant reasonably believes is evidence of.†(amendment.)
>Now, considering this is just a legal document, that presumably most people aren’t going to read anyways, can anyone give me a reason as to why any court wouldn’t read those two statements as being identical? A violation is a violation and scientists need to report it. Period.
Bolding added for emphasis. “Just a legal document” is inordinately dismissive of something of the significance of The U.S. Code. That is pretty much the set of laws for government conduct, elaborating and supplementing the U.S. Constitution. You act like it’s some backwater state law outlawing the walking of giraffes in public parks or something. Second, your presumption is incorrect, people do read it - lawyers, judges, lawmakers, etc. You know, the people being affected by the law.
As for why those specific additions were added, it has to do with interpretations in response to specific incidents. If some government functionary decides to interpret the law to mean that the whistleblower is protected only if they first make efforts to address things through the organizational leadership, and must first notify their management of their intent to whisteblow, that weakens the very intent of the whistleblower law. This clarification is to explicitly state what was previously assumed to be implicit and ignored by people in power.
> In addition, as best as i can read it this change (in regards to title 5) applies to ALL government employees. So as best i can tell under this law (perjury aside) everything that Scooter Libby did in revealing Valerie Plame is just peachy under this law as long as he thought that there was a violation, which there certainly was in terms of a conflict of interest.
No, there are explicit limits with regards to National Security information and Security Clearances. Nothing in this law excuses the actions of Scooter Libby to my reading.
> Alls I’m saying is that the implications of this bill seem to go beyond science and are very much related to how you feel about unnecessary legislation so to peg people who vote against it as being anti-science appears, to my reading of this anyways, to be wrong.
Concerns about unnecessary legislation are a valid motivation, but this is difficult to fit under that definition. There is a growing record of numerous abuses to the existing law. This bill was written to specifically address the abuses. If the abuses were not occurring, then the law change might be unnecessary, but since the abuses are occurring and happening because of specific interpretations of the allowances within the legal code, this bill is necessary to explicitly limit interpretations.
March 16th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Too bad this was not in force during the Clinton regime then maybe Juanita
Broaddrick would have had some protection when she Claimed Slick Willy raped her. Or does it just protect “Whistleblowers” who do the blowin against Republicans?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33027
March 16th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
WTF? “Clinton did it too!” “Well, actually, he is accused of doing something else entirely, which has NO bearing at all to what we’re discussing. But, CLINTON, CLINTON, CLINTON!!!”
Somewhere, a Republican bridge is missing its troll.
March 16th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
I’m not sure this whole “digg” connection is worth the noise. What’s the payoff for enduring the new high volume of low quality commentary?
March 16th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
This ia all very consistent with the thesis/title of a book called “The Republican War on Science”. Do we need any more evidence??
March 16th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
If those ‘NAY” votes seem troubling, one should stand out. That of Florida Congressman Dave Weldon (R). So, what part of Florida does Mr Weldon represent?
You guessed it.. Brevard County, Home of the Kennedy Space Center.
March 16th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
“I think it’s funny that this is even an issue. Since when was it acceptable to put partisan political affairs ahead of scientific progress?”
Mostly since 9/11 when most of the country became so completely hysterical with panic, they were delighted to let the Republicans do any bloody thing they please, including scraping the Constitution. Sanity seems to be slowly returning…or at least one may hope so.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
This bill is about James Hansen. This is about the Bush Administration telling him to be quiet and in other cases editing his press releases about AGW.
Ask me if I’m for a bill that prevents the government from interfering with the press releases of independently funded scientists for political reasons and 100 times out of 100 I will say yes.
Ask me if I’m for a bill that prevents an administration from controlling the press releases of it’s employees so that our executive branch is constantly saying contradictory things and I would say no.
I haven’t read this bill, so the truth of this specific bills effects probably lies somewhere in-between those two extremes.
What I do know is that what the Bush Administration edited out of James Hansen’s press-releases about AGW was not egregious at all, was a complete overstatement of known facts, and should have been caught in the peer-review process. I also know that James Hansen is a civil servant, meaning George Bush is his boss and should have free reign over changing James’ press releases.
Sorry Mr Hansen and any other scientists who are civil servants, you cannot speak independently because you have a boss who controls what results of yours are released. Whining to the press later about it is silly.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
“Sorry Mr Hansen and any other scientists who are civil servants, you cannot speak independently because you have a boss who controls what results of yours are released. Whining to the press later about it is silly.”
That is one of the most chilling comments I have ever seen posted anywhere.
March 16th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
I am a Republican. This does not mean that I hate science, nor does it mean I think our nation of laws should be replaced by the land of so-called faith-based initiatives. It means that on matters that I consider important, I tend to believe that a conservative interpretation of the Constitution is vital. It is a sad fact that those of us who believe in both conservatism and science no longer match the political viewpoint of many of those for whom we have voted. I don’t mention any of this in order to make this a battle against Democrats. Rather, I just wished to make it clear that many of us on the Republican side of the aisle support not only science but also the important right of Americans to speak up when someone does wrong, no matter who that someone might be. The ‘nay’ voters on this issue should not be lambasted for being Republicans. They should be lambasted for being narrow-minded, politically-focused, terminally narcissistic asses.
March 16th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
But all of the naysayers were Republicans; that should not be ignored either. I would say the same if it were the Democrats; I belong to no party.
March 16th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Jeremy, this is not about Hansen. This is about a systematic suppression of science by the Bush administration in all U.S. agencies. Hansen is one very visible example, but all indications point to it merely being one example of a systematic problem.
The fact is these scientists are not ordinary civil servants. It is not their job to toe the party line. It is their job to do research and report the finding faithfully and fully. It is their job to tell the government and the people how things really are so the best decision can be made. What the Bush administration meddling in science ultimately amounts to is an attempt to alter reality, or at least our knowledge of it, so it confirms to the party platform. Government policy on scientific issues should reflect the best knowledge at the time, not the other way around. It should be clear by this point that covering up a problem, even by altering the results of scientific studies, will not simply make the problem go away. Reality does not care about the political opinions of those in power, so scientists trying to find out about reality should not have to either.
March 16th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
@ Irishman
You proved my point when you said “The hardest part for me was… finding Title 5 section 2302 to read the context of the changes.” Which is to say that unless you are a judge on a case as to the legitimacy of a whistle blowing or the lawyer of someone who’s wondering whether or not their claims are legitimate you probably aren’t going to read it. What i mean is, if you are a government employee the odds are you have not and will not read the US Codes that protect you.
Now, taking that into consideration, i see no reason why a judge needs more than the original text to make a decision. Its like saying that the “necessary and proper” clause of the constitution is too vague and then specifying what is necessary and proper, such an action doesn’t give more freedom, it takes away the ability to interpret, which is the job of a judge and doesn’t need to be done, in this specific case anyways by congress.
Now if Congress put out a bill saying that any employee who feels that their job has been put in jeopardy because they are forwarding scientific fact (a la that NASA climate change business with the Bush appointee, or that stuff about the grand canyon book store that were both publicized in this blog.) has the right to sue the government or what have you then go for it, no scientist should feel pressured to lie, science is about truth. But as i said in my original post i just don’t think this bill is about being pro or anti science.
March 17th, 2007 at 7:12 am
First of all, when the bill is passed, as all indications point to it overcoming a presidential veto, the U.S. code will be altered in the way the bill states. So having to compare the two is not an issue.
Second, people don’t need to to know the exact mechanism by which whistleblowers must act. If someone is fine with everything, then they can just ignore the bill. If someone thinks they need to blow the whistle, then they can talk to a lawyer or search for the relevant portions of the law themselves. All someone has to know initially is that they think something is wrong. If that is enough to prompt them to do something, then they can check about the exact process they have to go through. It is the same as if someone thinks they have been wrongly accused of a crime. You don’t need to know the law before it happens. Once it does you check the law yourself or hire a lawyer to do it for you. There is no need to know the entire law by heart.
Third, your criticism applied just as well to the original form of the bill. How are people supposed to know what the U.S. code says now? That is what lawyers or for or it is something you do when it actually becomes important. Changing it will not change that.
About your comment about how being more specific limits our freedom. I don’t agree with that position at all. Do you think we would have more freedoms if the bill of rights did not specifically spell out things the government cannot do to us? Besides, look at most the amendments. Often the last thing they say is “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” There is similar wording in the original constitution on many issues. The constitution is not meant to stand on its own, it is meant to be backed up by additional legislature. The constitution outlines the general manner in which the 3 main branches of the government operates, while the U.S. code deals with the specifics. If the U.S. code does not specifically say that people can sign away their whistleblower protections then they can be made to do so. If it does not specifically say that you can blow the whistle on classified information to authorized people then you will not be able to do so. The law has to be specific or else the courts will not be able to protect people.
And you cite an issue with adding a little bit of wording to the bill. But that is not the important part of the bill. There are a great many other parts of the bill that are most certainly not frivolous or unnecessary. These are changes that the last few years have shown are essential. So if they are making these necessary changes anyway, I see no reason why they shouldn’t clean up some more minor problems with the existing bill while they are at it. Citing one little part of the bill as being unnecessary while ignoring the many other parts of the bill that are is just nitpicking. Besides, you don’t know that the part you cite is unimportant. It may be related to real cases that I am not aware of.
And finally, you say this is not about science suppression. You are wrong. There is a portion of the bill that deal specifically and explicitly with this problem. It is in the bill. Therefor it is certainly an important issue.
March 17th, 2007 at 7:20 am
WOW! I found something very interesting. If you read the UCS press release you will find that there was an amendment attempted that would specifically strip the protections for scientists from the bill while leaving everything else intact. This amendment is specifically targetting protection of scientists, the issue Phil and I think many people here were most concerned with.
Well I did some looking around and I managed to find the amendment here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:4:./temp/~bdLmvK::
The scary thing isn’t the amendment itself, though, it is the vote tally (you can find that by clicking “Roll No. 150 at the bottom”):
159 Republicans were in favor of stripping the scientific protections from the bill
39 Republicans were in favor of keeping the scientific protections
232 Democrats were in favor of keeping the scientific protections
0 Democrats were in favor or stripping the scientific protections
4 didn’t vote on each side
You read that right. Although More republicans voted against the scientific protections than voted for the bill as a whole. There were only a handful of republicans who wanted to keep the scientific protections in the bill. All Democrats wanted to keep the scientific protections.
March 17th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
TheBlackCat, thank you for that link, though I did have to re-search, as the results didn’t load. Because of it, I found online access to the House Record of the discussion of the bill in question. Yes, a transcript of the whole discussion on these amendments.
Chill Out, allow me to quote relevant testimony from the House Record:
To summarize, Congress feels the Federal Courts have consistently ruled counter to the intent of the law. Thus, the clarification is required in order to explicitly dictate to the courts the interpretation.
And I find it funny. Conservatives are loudly proclaiming the malfeasance of “activist judges” for overinterpreting the law, but here is a case where Congress is legally closing the loophole to constrain “activist judges”. Yet Conservatives oppose the closing of the loopholes.
March 17th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Forgot link.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H2521&dbname=2007_record
March 17th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Yes, it seems the links are all temporary, trying to go back later just doesn’t work.
March 17th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Well you brought up two issues so i’ll respond to both. Its important to remember that if congress feels a bill wants to include things that are best left separate its not a half bad idea to make amendment to remove one of them. Now i can’t speak for the republicans in the house but if i was one, this is what i would do. That way i could vote for protection of science but against what is essentially problem for the judges to work out. I’d like to study the other 143 cases, at least to study how against the intention of the original they are, if they are THAT different than sure, pass the bill, but otherwise it seems reasonable to leave it as is.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:22 am
It would be nice if that was what happened, Chill Out, but unless you can provide some evidence that this was their plan you are just making excuses. The fact is that majority of Republicans voted for the bill, but the vast majority voted against science. That indicates that their problem is with science, not with the bill. There is an amendment proposed that received overwhelming Republican support to eliminate scientific protections in the bill. There is no amendment whatsoever to rectify any of the wording issues you have brought up. This indicates there is no issue with the wording but there is an issue with the science. If you look at the transcript of the debate on the amendment (you’ll have to find it yourself, the links don’t seems to work properly), nobody who spoke mentioned any problem with existing bill or an none of the Republicans expressed any desire to deal with the scientific issues. What they did was deny the problem exists in the first place and brought up the tired old “scientific controversy” canard they have constantly used as an excuse for inaction on issues where no real controversy.
And this was not the only amendment to the scientific component of the bill, either. Another amendment (By Stupak) added a more specific protection to the bill:
“(3) any action that restricts or prevents an employee or any person performing federally funded research or analysis from publishing in peer-reviewed journals or other scientific publications or making oral presentations at professional society meetings or other meetings of their peers.”.”
Here the votes were very similar
all democrats wanted the part added
20 republicans wanted it as well
178 republicans did not want it
You cannot argue that this is them trying to separate two parts of the bill, yet it is pretty much the same pattern of voting. And once again none of the speakers expressed a problem with the existing bill. Their problems were specifically with the scientific aspects.
March 18th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Chill Out, read the transcripts and find a quote where any Republican (or anyone) argues that the two issues should be separated for independent votes. Find a quote where a Republican (or anyone) argues against the stated point that the federal courts have expressed a pattern of limiting the WPA protections against the intent of the WPA. Your hypothetical is silly because the record is there.
TheBlackCat, I’m having difficulty locating the proposed amendments. Clues?
March 18th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
I don’t have an easy way to do it, but here are the steps I took:
Go to http://thomas.loc.gov/
Search for words/phrases: Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act
It lists 3 bills under “Listing of 3 bills containing your phrase exactly as entered.”
Click on one of these (it doesn’t matter which)
Then click on “Bill Summary & Status file.” in the table.
There should be a larger table. In the 2nd row from the left, 3rd column from the top there should be “Amendments”. Click there
Amendment 1, H.AMDT.41, by “Rep Stupak, Bart”, is the second amendment I mentioned, the one about adding a specific case of political interference. The fourth, H.AMDT.44, by “Rep Sali, Bill”, is the one that would eliminate the scientific protection entirely.
If you click on the amendment number it will give you additional information (although, strangely, not the text of the amendment directly). The “Roll no. ###” link shows you the voting record for the amendment. The H####-#### links show the debates on the amendments. It does not contain the whole debate, just the first few words of each statement. Click the link directly above that statement to get the full text of the debate. Note that it does not start at the appropriate section, it is somewhere further along the page. The text of the amendments is in there somewhere, probably near the beginning of the debate. I found the best way to get to the debate is to do a quick in-page search for the sponsor of the amendment and find the place where he formally introduces it. The text of the amendment is immediately after that.
March 19th, 2007 at 7:29 am
I’ll admit I am a little surprised about this. I’m sort of a right-leaning Libertarian, but sometimes I think “why would I defend the Republicans?” I don’t know anything about this bill other than what you’ve written, so I don’t know of any non-evil reason for a Congressman to vote against it (although a reason or two may have been pointed out by someone above).
But as I thought about this bill, I was reminded of another one that recently passed the House: the Employee Free Choice Act.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll112.xml
Now, since every Democrat was for the bill and every Republican was against it (also, the White House stated the President would veto it if it makes it to his desk), so I’m not going to assume that this is a black and white, “if you vote for it you’re evil, if you vote against it you’re good” issue.
But one part of the bill seems particularly disturbing to me:
“In its current form, the statute allows an employer to demand a secret ballot election administered by the National Labor Relations Board when a union requests recognition based on signed authorization cards or petitions. The proposed Employee Free Choice Act would force the National Labor Relations Board to certify a union as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees based on signed authorizations obtained by union organizers.”
How can a bill that prevents union members from using a secret ballot (and thus protecting them from being bullied into voting a certain way) be good? Or rather, how could _every_ Democrat support this? This bill seems more anti-union to me, so maybe the yeas and nays should have been reversed.
I will say that the Democrats have their act together, either way. Looking through some of the other bills that have been voted on lately, the Democrats have rarely had more than one or two members vote a different way from the rest of the 232 Democrats.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Sorry i’ma few days late but I figured I would drop my .02$ in on this one too. The blog makes it seem like there are groups of Republicans huddled in small windowless rooms plotting how best to surpress new science and keep the country in the dark ages for as long as possible. Does the name Richard C. Hoagland mean anything to you? Congratulations on perpatrating another baseless conspiracy theory.
Yes its true that 94 Republicans voted against this bill but I seriously doubt it was because they are trying to supress scientists right to speak out. I would be much more likely to believe they voted against it because they felt it was un-necessary legislation that was already covered some where else or because the bill was so laden with pork that had been added onto it that the real meaning of the bill was lost in the shuffle.
Ultimately, all we can do is ask the guys who voted against it why they voted the way they did but to portray it in the light you did serves no positive purpose what so ever. Please, I know the people who read this site are entirely to intelligent to be taken in by something like this without searching for all the facts first.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
SharkByte, please read the bill before alleging problems with it. You can’t just assert that there must be pork in it or that it must be unnecessary simply because a bunch of Republicans had a problem with it. Read the bill and show us where the pork is. Read the bill and look at the issues and comments and show how it is unnecessary. You are just assuming that the people who voted against it must have done the right thing. The bill is easily available online. Read it and tell us exactly where the problems lie. The debate on the bill is easily available online. The amendments (there are only a few and they are fairly small) are easily available online. Even the estimated financial impact of the bill is easily available online. You are berating us for not researching things sufficiently, but you are making excuses without even having read the bill itself. A number of us have researched the issue. A number of us have read the bill, looked at the amendments, read parts of the debate, and read commentary. I know I have, I even read the cost estimate (almost nothing), and it seems clear Irishman has to a large extent as well. I have even shown in my comments above how the Republicans specifically and overwhelmingly targeted the scientific portion for attack twice.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
In light of the last 10 years record, I have to wonder how any sane person could think for a moment that the Republicans are against pork?!?!?! Neither are the Democrats, of course, but, then, no one tried to make such a silly claim.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Jack, interesting comment on the union issue. I have not investigated it so cannot comment on the content very intelligently. However, it is not a science related issue. Though I suppose your point was just to show how block voting relates to many issues, not just science ones? Okay, but that still does not address the merits of the bill that Phil posted on.
SharkByte, your hyperbole misrepresents the actual arguments being made. There are several forces at work within the Republican Party to stifle science. One is the religious conservative element resisting the philosophical implications coming from the results of science, and opposed to the liberal moral opinions from those who base their views on science. Another force is the Big Business corporate interests of maximizing profits without regard to other concerns. A third is the NeoCon agenda to promote an agressive, black/white foreign policy stance. These three forces have found a home in the Republican Party leadership, and have made their presence known through issues on abortion and stem cell research, issues on oil and timber industries and questions regarding climate change, and through the “War on Terror” and Iraq, etc.
No one asserts that the Republicans are actively trying to usher in a new Dark Age (hey, let’s set back science and crush our technological advancement!). Rather, the various political agendas all have reasons to be concerned about particular science information becoming public, because it does not support the positions they advocate. So there is a pattern of suppressing the presentation of science results, and the stifling of research into areas that are politically uncomfortable.
And political parties do have back room, front room, side corridor, phone call, etc conversations where they explicitly discuss Party positions on bills. They also play pressure games (within the party and with outsiders they can influence). To suggest that doesn’t happen is completely uninformed on the ways of politics.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
The point i was making was, to paraphrase just about every post behind mine, that saying “a vote against this bill is a vote against science” a false, and saying that “an amendment to remove the protection of scientists is a vote against scientists” is false. I dont give a damn what the republicans were actually thinking at the time, the point i was making is that there are other reasons to oppose this bill, in sum, its unnecessary and it covers 25 bases when it should just do a good job at covering one. If I were a congressman I’d vote against whistle blowing “regardless of context” which is how the bill phrases it, more or less, but I’d vote for protection of scientists against political pressure. The pressure scientists received from the Bush administration over climate change at NASA and from the higher ups in the park ranger service should not be the same issue as the report of malfeasance by an official of the US government. Without going through proper channels, without paying attention to the context that this bill encourages one to ignore than we end up with reports from low level officials straight to congress. Should congress be an option for an official who is ignored in his report? Sure, but like i said, its a separate issue from science and from a legal point of view the US code already protects officials who attempt to report “any violation.” Screw the political parties, and the pork slinging, and the attacks on science and all the mumbo jumbo, lets just analyze what this bill does and agree on what reality is. Its a valiant effort, no scientist should have to undergo the political pressure that some have faced, but I also know that the guys at NASA would be alot better off if congress appropriated some additional funds to them rather than giving them the option to speak in front of congressional sub-committees about possible violations, let the lawyers do that, let the scientists do science. Thats the point.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Jack Says:
March 19th, 2007 at 7:29 am
I’ll admit I am a little surprised about this. I’m sort of a right-leaning Libertarian, but sometimes I think “why would I defend the Republicans?†I don’t know anything about this bill other than what you’ve written, so I don’t know of any non-evil reason for a Congressman to vote against it (although a reason or two may have been pointed out by someone above).
But as I thought about this bill, I was reminded of another one that recently passed the House: the Employee Free Choice Act.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll112.xml
Now, since every Democrat was for the bill and every Republican was against it (also, the White House stated the President would veto it if it makes it to his desk), so I’m not going to assume that this is a black and white, “if you vote for it you’re evil, if you vote against it you’re good†issue.
But one part of the bill seems particularly disturbing to me:
“In its current form, the statute allows an employer to demand a secret ballot election administered by the National Labor Relations Board when a union requests recognition based on signed authorization cards or petitions. The proposed Employee Free Choice Act would force the National Labor Relations Board to certify a union as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees based on signed authorizations obtained by union organizers.â€
How can a bill that prevents union members from using a secret ballot (and thus protecting them from being bullied into voting a certain way) be good? Or rather, how could _every_ Democrat support this? This bill seems more anti-union to me, so maybe the yeas and nays should have been reversed.
The way I read this and implied by the title “streamlining the process” (not that titles are particularly honest) is that the Labor Board can make the determination the employees want the union representation without the employer’s challenge. It doesn’t say secret ballot is not an option. Also the old wording says 30% of employees and the newer version says “majority”.
Given the Republican track record of opposing any unions, I’m going to trust the Democrats here argued the vote clause was only being used as intimidation and or stalling tactic and not because employees were joining unions out of peer pressure.
Do you know if any such votes ever resulted in uncovering coerced union membership choices?
March 19th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
I’m not sure what you mean by membership choices but there is a leftist idea (further left than most/all democrats as far as i know, but the former policy of the British Labor Party) of the closed shop, that is, ensuring that all industries are represented by labor unions, for better or for worse.
March 20th, 2007 at 7:26 am
Chill Out said:
>… and from a legal point of view the US code already protects officials who attempt to report “any violation.â€
Apparently those protections haven’t been adequately enforced, in the opinion of many Congressmen, as previously cited.
> If I were a congressman I’d vote against whistle blowing “regardless of context†which is how the bill phrases it, more or less,
Did you read the context of that statement? The intent is to address concerns that people who first tried to raise the issue through normal work channels (i.e. inform supervisor, suggest process improvement, etc) or deal with it as part of their normal job were not being granted whistleblower protection for later raising the issue higher up the chain. The “prior context” was justification for the board and courts to rule they were not “whistleblowers”. The Democrats and many Republicans disagreed, and said the whole intent of the law was to protect anyone raising the issues, even if they tried to do it through channels first.
> … but I also know that the guys at NASA would be alot better off if congress appropriated some additional funds to them rather than giving them the option to speak in front of congressional sub-committees about possible violations, let the lawyers do that, let the scientists do science.
I certainly agree Congress assigning additional funds (like maybe signing last year’s budget and giving them the money they expected for this year) would be great. And certainly taking scientists away from doing science so they can talk to Congress about problems is a waste. Except for the fact that the big waste is the problems in the first place, and the means to correct the problems is for the people who are having them to directly testify. It’s like court - you don’t interview the lawyers on the stand.
April 10th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
[…] it. Hmmm. Here ’s an interesting little tidbit: not one Democrat voted against this bill. Not one.read more | digg story April 11th, 2007 | Category: Space […]
November 14th, 2007 at 9:16 am
[…] March 18, 2007 by scottobear BHK and I saw and *really enjoyed* Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon… much better than I’d thought it would be, and held well to mockumentary and the original subject matter’s convention. I suspect it’s not going to be a huge draw though… lucky we caught it on it’s first and possibly last weekend. Chris and Larry adopted Tigger last night after a marathon shopping at Ikea. My first time there… I enjoyed the odd named stuff and the semi-corporate weirdness. However, we shopped too long, and I got plumb tuckered out. Young Ms. Tigger seems quite happy in her new abode. via and the bad astronomy blog- […]