March 14, 2006

Statement by Major Thomas L. Rempfer, NSWBC Member

I begin by expressing my sincere appreciation to our elected representatives, their staffs, and the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition for your joint efforts in strengthening the often-overlooked requirement for whistleblower protections.  Such protections allow those in the service of our nation to "fly high cover" over their Departments when duty and oath dictate.  I must also preemptively caveat my comments by confirming my views do not represent those of my Department in accordance with regulations.

While applauding current legislative attempts to strengthen our system of government oversight, it's equally important that I convey my belief in the very system I am compelled to critically assess.  Having witnessed many examples over the years where hardworking and sincere members of unit-level investigative staffs worked diligently to resolve the complaints, we should feel reassured that such examples uphold the ideals we are all trained to protect. Unfortunately, these success stories often involve cases at the lower levels of government or subordinate echelons of the chain of command. In contrast, high-level complaints, those that question the integrity of our institutions and their policymaking, are often not properly investigated.

This reality, and my own experiences over the past seven years in providing professional dissent within the available channels of my Department, demonstrate that absent a continuous public outcry too often honest and thorough investigations of high level misconduct and illegal policy are not conducted. Instead, forthright examination is replaced by a well-documented modus operandi of denial, delay, diversion and disparagement of those concerned, tactics that effectively suppress or discourage whistleblowers.

Over seven years of attempting to get investigative agencies to do their job I have also observed:

1.  Referral of complaints to the very agencies under investigation, creating a conflict of interest.

2.  Referral to other investigative agencies, with no follow-up, so complaints languish unresolved.

3.  Limited of investigation of allegations, review of evidence, or interviews of officials in question. 

5.  Dismissal of complaints without explanation, and closure of cases without notification.

While limited numbers of Congressional officials have been responsive to complaints, actively assisting whistleblowers within their constituencies, as a whole the Executive Departments under fire enjoy the reality that the Congress will generally be absent in terms of unified oversight and meaningful assistance to whistleblowers. A fog of war is often created on Capitol Hill through aggressive Executive Branch or Department public relations, and lobbying or liaison work on issues that could impugn their integrity and credibility.  While some public relations are critical, when it comes to many issues relevant to whistleblowers too often the result is partisan politics. The resulting inevitable paralysis of oversight effectively shields Executive Agencies from proper scrutiny. The indirect effect of these operations within the decision-making cycles of our lawmakers is a lack of accountability, checks and balances, and oversight of Executive Agencies by the Congress. Fortunately though, whistleblowers can liaison too.

In closing, I refer to Army Pamphlet 600–2, The Armed Forces Officer, read by Military Officer Candidates from West Point to Annapolis.  This pamphlet lists "Fundamental Propositions" that have guided professional military officer development since 1775.  Ironically, the 13^th proposition reads:  "Within our school of military thought, higher authority does not consider itself infallible. Either in combat or out, any time a situation arises where a majority of military-trained Americans become undutiful, that is a very good reason for higher authority to resurvey its own judgments, disciplines and line of action." Clearly we only witness whistleblowers in our government because those in the service of our nation have astutely followed the training of their leaders, attempting to do their duty for their country.

Yet despite all our ethical training, our risk management education, and our decision-making process guidance, it is not surprising that human nature creates a cultural tendency for Departments and Agencies in our government to not thoroughly investigate high-level wrongdoing related to policies or programs perceived to be critical of the institution.  That's why we need our Congress to perform effective oversight.

The Founders understood that Departments controlled by the Executive Branch require oversight by the Legislative Branch. Senate Resolution 2285 and House Resolution 4925 are positive steps toward accomplishing this Constitutionally mandated oversight responsibility. I respectfully urge their passage.