Irate Lawmakers See Betrayal in Reagan Veto of Whistle-Blower Bill

Democrats and Republicans in Congress said Thursday they were shocked and angered by President Reagan’s decision to veto a bill that would have given government whistle-blowers more protection from being harassed or fired.

The bill, passed unanimously in both houses and initially endorsed by the Administration, was vetoed Wednesday in a surprise move by Reagan. The bill’s method of giving whistle-blowers more legal authority to fight against reprisals from their superiors “would have interfered substantially with personnel management” in the federal government, the President said.

Legislators said Thursday they were angry for two reasons. First, they said Administration officials had reneged on a commitment made only three weeks ago to support the final compromise bill. Secondly, they said Reagan had gone back on his 1980 campaign pledge to back whistle-blowers who expose waste and fraud in the federal bureaucracy.

Rep. Frank Horton (R-N.Y.), a House co-sponsor of the bill, called the veto “a reprehensible act that . . . was orchestrated after adjournment of Congress to prevent an override.” Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), another co-sponsor, said it “is outrageous conduct and has created a bipartisan explosion because it violates the basic understanding . . . that an Administration’s word is good.”

Administration officials acknowledged that Joseph R. Wright Jr., acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, officially endorsed the measure in a letter to House leaders on Oct. 3.

However, new Atty. Gen. Dick Thornburgh, representing the Justice Department, made a successful, last-ditch effort to convince Reagan that the bill’s protection mechanism was unwise and unconstitutional. If the bill had gone into effect, the government could have found itself in the odd position of suing itself over whistle-blowers’ complaints, Thornburgh said.

Nevertheless, a lawyer who represents government workers in disputes with their superiors complained that the current system is stacked against the employees.

“This bill could have made 3 million federal bureaucrats into 3 million public servants,” said Tom Devine of the nonprofit Government Accountability Project. More employees would be willing to expose waste and fraud if they could be assured they would not be punished for doing so, he said.

The Pentagon fraud scandal revealed last summer illustrates the problem, Devine said. “The payoffs for inside information had apparently become a way of life there, but honest employees at the Pentagon did not dare expose it for fear of retaliation,” Devine said.

Administration officials counter that many so-called whistle-blowers are simply disgruntled employees who have failed to do their jobs.

The dispute over the fate of whistle-blowers originated with the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. A special counsel, appointed by the President, was created to handle complaints voiced by workers against their managers. If he thought they were justified, he could take the case before the Merit System Protection Board. Its three members were also appointed by the President.

In recent years, Congress concluded this system was biased in favor of management. The special counsel, rather than representing the workers, often turned over the information in the complaint to the employee’s superior.

According to Devine, nearly 2,000 employees have filed complaints since 1978, charging they were penalized for complaining about fraud or waste in the government, and only four won in their appeals to the Merit System Protection Board.

The vetoed bill would have made the special counsel more of a lawyer for the employee rather than for the government. The counsel would have been prevented from turning over information to managers. Moreover, if the merit board rejected the employee’s complaint, the special counsel would have been authorized to file suit on his behalf in federal court.

Thornburgh pointed out that the special counsel was still a federal attorney. “The bill would have resulted in the executive branch filing suit in federal court against itself,” he said, explaining why he believed the measure was unconstitutional.

The dispute is likely to surface again early next year. Congressional backers of the vetoed legislation said they plan to introduce it again and predicted it could again receive overwhelming support.

Aides to Thornburgh said they hold out hope that the constitutional problem could be resolved, perhaps by reimbursing federal employees for the cost of using private attorneys to fight their cases in federal court.