Whistleblower Problems in the Federal Grain Inspection Service: Hearing Before the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, United States Senate, One Hundred First Congress, Second Session, on Allegations of Reprisal by Officials of the Federal Grain Inspection Service Against the Whistleblowers, October 4, 1990

Front Cover

What people are saying - Write a review

We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases

Popular passages

Page 107 - The right of employees, individually or collectively, to petition Congress or a Member of Congress, or to furnish information to either House of Congress, or to a Committee or Member thereof, may not be interfered with or denied.
Page 107 - Uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.
Page 107 - MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for inviting my testimony. My name is Thomas Devine, and I serve as legal director of the Government Accountability Project. GAP is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that provides legal assistance to government and corporate whistleblowers, those employees who make disclosures challenging illegality or other serious misconduct where they work. GAP led a grass roots coalition that fought successfully for passage of the Whist leblower Protection Act of 1989.
Page 107 - ... illegality, mismanagement, abuse of authority, gross waste or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. Personnel actions taken or proposed before July 9, 1989 are governed by the legal standards of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1989 for adjudicating the dispute.
Page 122 - The hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:59 am, the Committee was adjourned.] 40 APPENDIX PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR BUNNING Thank you, Mr.
Page 53 - I think you just stated that you didn t agree with that. Did you, Dr. Watson? Dr. WATSON. No, I did not. Senator MELCHER. And since you didn't agree to it, why was it done? Dr. WATSON. It was an administrative decision. Senator MELCHER. Who made the decision, Mr. Miller? Mr. MILLER. I don't recall that I made that decision. I wasn't consulted about it. I was surprised when it had been made, to be truthful about it. Senator MELCHER.
Page 55 - Marlenee. retest what had been shipped out to see, in fact, if their allegations are correct; and if they are not correct, they can go fly a kite. Mr. ROGERS. Well, I thought maybe that we had collaborative exchange of samples. Somebody else would have to verify that. I am not in that end of it. We just have to deal with the complaints, and we pass the complaints on. Senator MELCHER. You do exchange samples, do you not, Dr. Watson; and they are done by the same method, chemical method, Kjeldahl.
Page 52 - Kjeldahl, and you use this other set, it is still just 0.2 below the Kjeldahl; it's not 0.4, because you are going back to the same Kjeldahl baseline again. You are always referring back to the Kjeldahl as a baseline. Mr. MARLENEE. You have said that the result of all this missmash was a lowering, and perhaps an incorrect lowering. I am going to switch to Kirk Miller at this time. You became aware that there might be some problem associated with the May 4 order to lower the protein readings, and...
Page 42 - Senator MELCHER. Mr. Miller, you just don't know about this? Where were you before? I hate to ask this, but maybe I should know more about your background. You were not with FGIS, I take it. Mr. MILLER. I was not with FGIS, sir. I was the head of a research-oriented trade association in Wisconsin.
Page 78 - I think there were several hundred. About 700, I believe, or something like that that we ran, so there was a considerable number of samples to verify this. Now, in regards to the baseline change, I wanted to make one comment here because I think I made the wrong impression. I disagreed also with the baseline change, on April 15, across the board.

Bibliographic information