The House Government Reform Committee held an extraordinary hearing yesterday on the vulnerabilities of national security whistleblowers who challenge what they see as agency misconduct.
“Breaking bureaucratic ranks to speak unpleasant and unwelcome truths takes courage and risks invoking the wrath of those with the power and motive to shoot the messenger,” said Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT), who chaired the hearing.
In an unusual move, Chairman Shays gave pride of place to several whistleblowers who testified in the first panel of the hearing, while agency representatives waited to testify in the third panel.
All of the prepared testimony may be found here.
Today, “there are no meaningful protections for [national security] whistleblowers,” wrote former FBI linguist Sibel Edmonds in response to a New York Times op-ed last week by DCIA Porter Goss.
See “Porter Goss’ Op-ed: ‘Ignotum per Ignotius’!” by Sibel Edmonds, February 11.
“Ignotum per ignotius” is a Latin expression referring to an explanation which is harder to understand than that which it is meant to explain.
Of course badly designed regulatory approaches can block progress or dry up the supply of public goods. But a theory of the whole regulatory world can’t be neatly extrapolated from urban zoning errors.
Congress should design strategic insurance solutions, enhance research and data, and protect farmworkers through on-farm adaptation measures.
If space is there, and if we are going to climb it, then regulatory reform must be a challenge that we are willing to accept, something that we are unwilling to postpone, for a competition that we intend to win.
To what extent does EPA have ready access to data to measure drinking water compliance reliably and accurately?