Last year the Supreme Court dealt a blow to free speech that caused few waves in public awareness:
The Supreme Court scaled back protections for government workers who blow the whistle on official misconduct Tuesday, a 5-4 decision in which new Justice Samuel Alito cast the deciding vote.In a victory for the Bush administration, justices said the 20 million public employees do not have free-speech protections for what say as part of their jobs.
Critics predicted the impact would be sweeping, from silencing police officers who fear retribution for reporting department corruption, to subduing federal employees who want to reveal problems with government hurricane preparedness or terrorist-related security.
The case was Garcetti v. Ceballos, 04-473. Alito was the deciding vote. Just a year earlier O'Connor had been the deciding vote on a case that protected whistleblowers in schools.
Now the House has taken dramatic action to restore rights--especially for scientists who feel their work is being undermined. But to pass the Senate, this bill will require strong advocacy.
H.R. 985 was proposed by Henry Waxman:
To amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify which disclosures of information are protected from prohibited personnel practices; to require a statement in nondisclosure policies, forms, and agreements to the effect that such policies, forms, and agreements are consistent with certain disclosure protections, and for other purposes.
It passed the house by a veto-proof majority (331-94) largely as a result of the uproar caused by recent hearings on the stifling of global warming research (esp. at NASA). All 94 Nays were Republican.
The House soundly rejected an amendment from Rep. Bill Sali (R-Idaho) that would have stripped all protections for scientists from the legislation. Instead, the legislators included an amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) giving scientists the right to present their research at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.
But passage in the Senate is questionable.
The bill is strongly supported by the Union of Concerned Scientists:
Across a broad range of policy areas, the administration has undermined the quality and independence of the scientific advisory system and the morale of the government’s outstanding scientific personnel:
--Highly qualified scientists have been dropped from advisory committees dealing with childhood lead poisoning, environmental and reproductive health, and drug abuse, while individuals associated with or working for industries subject to regulation have been appointed to these bodies.
--Censorship and political oversight of government scientists is not restricted to the EPA, but has also occurred at the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and Interior, when scientific findings are in conflict with the administration's policies or with the views of its political supporters.
--The administration is supporting revisions to the Endangered Species Act that would greatly constrain scientific input into the process of identifying endangered species and critical habitats for their protection.
--Existing scientific advisory committees to the Department of Energy on nuclear weapons, and to the State Department on arms control, have been disbanded.
--In making the invalid claim that Iraq had sought to acquire aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment centrifuges, the administration disregarded the contrary assessment by experts at Livermore, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National Laboratories.
If you agree that
The distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends must cease if the public is to be properly informed about issues central to its well being, and the nation is to benefit fully from its heavy investment in scientific research and education.
then it's time to call your senator.
Postscript: There is another issue that is peripheral to the bill. Bush has, once again, threatened a veto. He vetoed nothing for the first 6 years of his presidency. Why now? Is someone telling him that the signing statement scam is unlikely to be sustained by the SCOTUS?