« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

Source: Collins Strips Stim Bill Of Whistleblower Protections
Another great coup for the centrists!
Sen. Susan Collins, the Maine GOP dealmaker who's been in the limelight this week for helping to pass a watered down stimulus, has been talking a good game about the need to avoid wasting taxpayer money. But it looks like Collins also worked today to strip from the final bill a measure that's crucial to exposing that waste.
Here's what happened:
The House stimulus bill contained a provision designed to protect federal whistleblowers. Currently, those protections are shockingly weak. According to the Project On Government Oversight, whistleblowers who are fired or demoted can file a complaint with a government board -- but over the last eight years, that board has ruled in favor of whistleblowers only twice in 55 cases.
More to the point, the protections were designed to encourage federal workers to point out cases where taxpayer money is subject to waste, fraud, or abuse -- a legitimate concern when Congress spends $800 billion, and one that centrists and Republicans have been particularly exercised about.
Yesterday, 20 members of the House, from both parties, sent a letter to House negotiators urging them to ensure that the protections remained.
But, according to a person following the bill closely, Collins used today's conference committee to drastically water down the measure, citing national security concerns as the reason for her opposition. In the end, the protections were so weakened that House negotiators balked, and the result was that the entire amendment was removed.
According to the person following the bill, Collins was the "central roadblock" to passing the protections.
To make matter worse, Collins is the ranking Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs commitee, which, as an oversight committee, might be expected to see its role as protecting whistleblowers. She also sits on the Senate appropriations committee, giving her a strong position from which to wield influence during today's negotiations.
Though Senate leader Harry Reid supported the protections, said the source, he wasn't willing to strong-arm Collins on the issue, given her central role in negotiations over the stimulus bill as a whole.
So when, in the coming months, conservatives start jumping up and down over the fact that money from the stimulus bill is being wasted, as they surely will, it's worth remember that a key measure designed to help expose that waste was removed from the bill -- and by a senator said to be a champion of fiscal discipline.
Senator Collins's press secretary did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

















I smell a rat.
February 11, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that stench is Eau de Congress.
February 11, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's because she knows how fracked up Bath Iron Works is, and she doesn't want someone to drop a dime on them.
February 12, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
So... is it the republican mobsters or democrat mobsters who are protecting the common folks...
Once again... common folks are not a concern for the mobsters who promised to represent them... only their rich and powerful friends...
February 11, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a question. Why are we stuffing this in a Stimulus bill? Seriously, this is ridiculous.
February 11, 2009 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me append: We need this, just doesn't belong in this bill. As long as we have commitments in place to put this in another bill, I'm okay with that.
February 11, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's my thought, too. And don't forget, a separate bill wouldn't have to follow the pay-go rules (which require 60 votes just to pass a bill).
February 11, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
how ignorant.
something is either deserving or not.
does it matter where the hell it is passed? and shouldnt it be the law?
if..it gets passed in another bill is your hope.
dumb...dumb..dumb
how long will people here make excuses for everything the dems amd obama fold on??
February 11, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
No...I said if there was commitments to place it in another bill. If it's not, then clearly it was taken out for the wrong reasons.
February 11, 2009 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh...
Well, actually, it is probably for the best. Hopefully, now the Dems we create a new bill focused solely on clean and open government and then just steamroll the party of "NO" with it.
February 11, 2009 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congressional Democrats steamrolling anyone?
More likely they will roll themselves over, throw their paws up in the air, and say: "We don't have the votes to pass anything."
What a bunch of wussies.
February 11, 2009 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a feeling there are others speaking through her, although why they wouldn't have chosen a better speaking vessel is beyond me (I find her painful to listen to).
"She" was against school construction funding too -- damn those children whining about crumbling buildings, who do they think they are?!?
February 11, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Calchala...
you're probably right...
After all, there really is no reason to have whistleblowers disclose fraud, waste and abuse from this bill... since it's not even a trillion dollars...
February 11, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am thinking that an Obama Executive Order directing real protection for whistleblowers would be very appropriate and would make for a nice media reporting cycle.
February 11, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
And she's a moderate Republican?
This is wrong, except when the rat helped the other rats and is just trying to get a "get out of jail free" card.
But whistle-blowers need to be protected, unless you don't really want anyone to come forward.
February 11, 2009 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Platts/Van Hollen amendment (which Collins just killed) is identical to the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007 (H.R. 985), which the House passed by an overwhelming margin. The Senate would have passed it too, if Coburn hadn't put a hold on it.
February 11, 2009 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's Sec. 1243 of H.R. 1, and not identical by my reading. It begins:
I've done some research into Collins' pitiful time as chair of HS&GA, and so this is especially galling.
February 11, 2009 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that's a different provision. The Platts/Van Hollen amendment would apply to Federal employees and contractors.
Either way, it sucks.
February 11, 2009 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nearly no military installations or federal facilities in Maine, it was easy for Senator Susan Collins to toss federal whistleblowers under the bus.
Why in the heck would these career politicians want to give protections to officials who could expose any of the skeletons in their own closet.
Attention future whistleblowers: Keep your mouth shut, turn a blind eye, and hope no one gets killed, because it is not worth going homeless for.
February 11, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read my other post:
An employee of any non-Federal employer receiving funds...
February 11, 2009 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The provisions that were stripped would apply to Federal employees.
February 12, 2009 5:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been watching this carefully. This makes me so mad! I am now unwilling to trust Susan Collins!
February 11, 2009 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I used to think Susan Collins was a decent person. But the last week has made clear that she is just another Republican.
February 12, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
During the campaign last summer, it was learned that Collins, while chair of HS&GA, had held only hearing looking into the waste, fraud, and malfeasance that has come to personify the Iraq Reconstruction program. So I looked into what it was that she felt was more important, and wrote this.
February 11, 2009 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Better to take the whistleblower clause out of the stimulus bill, and bring it up at another time and dare Collins to vote against it in the light of day.
February 11, 2009 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is so typical of power.
Where there exists the possibility that someone of conscience might bring wrongdoing to light, people who hold power want no part of it.
There must be a reason for this.
What could that be?
How come every time a senator cites national security as a reason for doing something my BS detector goes wild?
February 12, 2009 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
"form today's hearings with eight banks CEOs...
"should be from today's hearings with eight banks CEOs...
February 12, 2009 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Collins was a loyal Bush bootlicker for 8 years and now she's pretending to be politically moderate. Of course the media allows her to spin this lie. She needs to go.
February 12, 2009 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Call the committtee-- house/senate and tell them, along with the whitehouse, that protections for those who EXPOSE WASTE IS NECESSARY!
1.800.828.0498
February 12, 2009 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't what here blowing my whistle.
February 12, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Susan Collins is devious, just stupid.
February 12, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
"he wasn't willing to strong-arm Collins on the issue"
Again, the pathetically weak Sen Reid allows the threat of a filibuster to significantly harm legislation. The greatest asset the Republican Party has right now is the power that Sen Leader Harry Reid gives them by not making them physically filibuster popular bills.
We didn't need their three votes (and thus, our pathetic compromises) if we had let the Senate Minority forever place their stamps on being Anti-Jobs and Pro-Poverty and do a proper filibuster against the Jobs bill. They would have folded in a heartbeat. (Or pulled a Cornyn and missed the vote)
February 12, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, this was not a filibuster threat. The Senate pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rule requires that legislation be budget neutral: that is, that any increase in spending or reduction in revenue be offset in some way so as not to increase the deficit. To waive the rule requires a three-fifths supermajority. And the rule would have to be waived for the stimulus legislation, because it is not (by design, actually) budget neutral. Hence the need for 60 votes for passage: to pass it, you need to waive PAYGO.
February 12, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't smell a rat I smell an Elephant(party). What's she really looking to hide?
February 12, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I say we stick this BORENOSED HOG in Guantanomo where she belongs. Ive had my fill of Her and the rest of these lying corrupt greedy money grubbing slime in washington. LOCK THEM UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
February 12, 2009 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink