Grassley said that whistleblowers are not adequately protected in either measure, yet whistleblowers are the key to exposing a dysfunctional bureaucracy. "Government agencies too often want to cover up their mistakes, and the temptation is even greater when bureaucracies can use a potential security issue as an excuse," he said. "At the same time, the information whistleblowers provide is all the more important when public safety and security is at stake."
In response, Grassley will introduce legislation today to provide explicit whistleblower protections for federal baggage screeners. He also said his support for a homeland security bill hinges on adequate whistleblower protections for employees of the new department. "Any bill to create a new agency without whistleblower protections is doomed to foster a culture that protects its own reputation before the security of the homeland."
When Congress made baggage screeners federal employees in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act last November, it removed the workers from the air carrier whistleblower protections he worked to secure in 2000 as part of the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, or Air21. Consequently, the ATSA restricted the application of the Whistleblower Protection Act to the new, federal security screeners.
Grassley said legislation to create a Department of Homeland Security similarly cuts out whistleblower protections for employees. The proposed bill says the Secretary for the new department can create an employee management system that's different from the existing federal system, which includes the Whistleblower Protection Act. The legislation uses language similar to last fall's ATSA, and the Office of Special Counsel has interpreted that language as exempting federal screeners from established federal whistleblower protections.
"Congress needs to make sure that federal employees involved in securing our homeland ? whether they're screening bags at the airport or involved in the massive operations of the new federal agency ? can speak up without retribution when there's a problem that needs to be fixed," Grassley said. "It doesn't serve the public to keep this kind of information buried in the bureaucracy."
Grassley is co-author of the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. He made his remarks this morning during a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee examining President Bush's proposal for reorganizing the nation's homeland defense infrastructure.
The Iowa senator also called for "a strong and independent inspector general to oversee the new Department of Homeland Security." The proposed legislation contains provisions that allow the secretary to stop an inspector general's audit or investigation under certain circumstances, in a way similar to existing powers given to the Attorney General and Secretary of Defense. Grassley said that such interference is rare at the Justice and Defense departments, and he wants to make sure the Department of Homeland Security would follow the same model.
Opening Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley, of Iowa
Senate Committee on the Judiciary Hearing on Protecting the Homeland
The President's Proposal for Reorganizing Our Homeland Defense Infrastructure.
Wednesday, June 26, 2002
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on the President's proposal for a new Department of Homeland Security. Although I have some concerns about his plan, we must take some action to put the government in a better position to prevent and respond to terrorism. The creation of a department to oversee homeland security is a tremendous undertaking for the White House and will face multiple challenges, including overcoming the established agencies' desire for self-preservation and the long-standing interagency turf battles. Regardless of these difficulties, we have no choice but to strengthen our national security, and I appreciate the President's commitment to doing so. If a new Department of Homeland Security is the answer, I'll do everything I can to enhance the effectiveness of this new department.
The new Department will have to improve and coordinate our intelligence analysis and sharing functions, as well as our law enforcement efforts. The recent news reports about what information the FBI and CIA had, but did not share or did not pursue, are quite troubling. Our Nation needs to do everything possible to make sure this type of attack never happens again on American soil. I think that the creation of the Department of Homeland Security can help the United States government look at what happened, identify what we need to do better, and coordinate constructive improvements to our national security.
The new Department will need to identify barriers to effective communication and cooperation between the many entities involved in America's national security. It should identify the underperforming ones, make any recommendations for improvements, and coordinate the remedial action that is taken.
But, I have a number of concerns about the President's proposed legislation. I'm concerned that whistleblowers won't be adequately protected; that the Office of Inspector General won't have sufficient independence to aggressively oversee the department; that the Department will be plagued with redundancies and waste; that information analysis and sharing will be neglected; and that the various infrastructure protection agencies won't have a smooth transition.
Whistleblowers are the key to exposing a dysfunctional bureaucracy. FBI Agent Coleen Rowley is just the most recent in a series of whistleblowers who have revealed bureaucratic inefficiencies and misdeeds in a federal agency. Bureaucracies have an instinct to cover up their mistakes, and that temptation is even greater when they can use a potential security issue as an excuse. This is why it is critical to give adequate whistleblower protections to each and every employee of the new Homeland Security Department, without exception.
I am concerned that the Administration's bill cuts out whistleblower protections for Department of Homeland Security employees. The bill provides that the Secretary of the new Department may create an employee management system different from the traditional federal system, which includes the Whistleblower Protection Act. It uses language similar to that in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which created the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA). The Office of Special Counsel, which administers whistleblower protections, interpreted the TSA language as excepting federal screeners from established federal whistleblower protections. That is why I am introducing a bill to provide whistleblower protections for federal baggage screeners.
I am fearful that the Office of Special Counsel will come up with the same interpretation, since the President's bill contains language very similar to that included in the TSA bill.
I will only be able to support a Homeland Security bill that includes strong and specific protections for whistleblowers. Any bill to create a new agency without whistleblower protections is doomed to foster a culture that protects its own reputation rather than the security of the homeland.
The new Department also needs independent oversight. An aggressive, completely independent Inspector General will ensure that agencies will perform their mandated duties in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. They investigate employee abuse and wrongdoing. A strong Inspector General is critical to the success of the new department. That's because some components from the existing agencies that are to be incorporated in the new department have not been performing at an optimal level. For example, the root causes of the ineffectiveness of the Immigration and Naturalization Service will not be rectified by merely moving it underneath the umbrella of Homeland Security. Those problems are going to have to be fixed. Moving the blocks around is not going to make for an effective Department. After the transition is complete and the department is in place, the Homeland Security Inspector General should conduct audits, and monitor adherence to performance measures and compliance with strategic planning initiatives, among other internal quality control functions.
It is also important that the new department follow principles of good government and fiscal responsibility. This new department cannot expand the size of the federal government. In fact, we need to see significant streamlining of the bureaucracy if this reorganization is going to work. The department doesn't need to retain every single procurement official from every single agency it has absorbed. In the name of good government and fiscal responsibility, the Administration needs to identify any redundancies in the bureaucracies that are to be redirected to the new department and maximize the efficiencies demonstrated by the most effective programs. The new Department's mission should be homeland security, not job security.
Smart compilation, sharing and analysis of intelligence data is critical to our nation in this war against terrorism. However, interagency fighting and turf battles can hinder the war on terrorism. Sharing this information is important, but what action is taken on the information once it is received is crucial.
The new department needs to be characterized by a culture dedicated to the good of the Nation and not the good of the department. The department also needs up to date technology for data mining and link analysis, in addition to human intelligence. The application of commercially available software, let alone proprietary confidential technology, will surely improve our ability to identify trends, patterns of behavior, and the precursors of an imminent attack. On the sharing and analysis of intelligence information, the Administration must demonstrate how the FBI, CIA, and other U.S. intelligence-gathering agencies will successfully interact with the new department.
On that note, I add that I don't hold the Director of the FBI responsible for the intelligence failures before September 11th. Mr. Mueller had been in office for only one week when the attacks occurred. I'm willing to give him some slack, but I stress that he's got to clean up the mess. Regarding the establishment of the Homeland Security Department, I don't think the entire FBI should be folded into a new department dealing with domestic security. I add though that the new Secretary needs the authority to analyze the intelligence the FBI has collected and guarantee that it's shared with other agencies as appropriate.
The proposed Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Division within the new Department will combine such entities as part of the National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC), the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office (CIAO) from the Commerce Department, and the Federal Computer Incident Response Center from the General Services Administration, among others. We must ensure a smooth and complete transition of organizational effectiveness as we cannot afford to have the new Department of Homeland Security reinventing the wheel at this critical point. We cannot allow agencies that are turning over parts of their former domains to be parochial in their approach to this new department.
There's no place for jurisdictional battles and unnecessary statutory barriers with respect to information sharing amongst our intelligence and law enforcement agencies when America's security is at risk. We need to identify our security and intelligence shortcomings and resolve them appropriately.
The ultimate goal here before us is to help our intelligence and law enforcement communities at being the best they can be at protecting our nation and the American people. I'm not thoroughly convinced that the establishment of a new department is the comprehensive solution to our problems here. If we don't fix the problems at the various agencies that will become the new department we won't see real homeland security. We can't build a new house with broken blocks. A lot of homework needs to be done, and quickly. If this plan is indeed the answer for effective homeland security, now and for the future, then lets move forward and get it done right.