More corporate reforms needed

WASHINGTON -- A bipartisan chorus of critics on Wednesday questioned the extent of President Bush's support for protecting corporate whistle-blowers who expose cooked books or mislead investors.\n"This bothers me," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who helped write new whistle-blower protections into a corporate accountability law Bush signed Tuesday. "We need people who know about wrongdoing to come forward. If they don't, corporate crooks will get away with their crimes."\nThe flap arose as the White House, hours after Bush affixed his signature to the measure cracking down on boardroom fraud and making corporate financial reporting more transparent, issued its interpretation of a provision shielding whistle-blowers from employer retaliation when they present Congress with information about wrongdoing.\nThe Bush administration, through a statement quietly released Tuesday evening, said it viewed the new law as protecting informants only if they help a congressional committee conducting an investigation. Protections would not apply when evidence is provided to individual lawmakers or aides outside such proceedings, the White House said.\nAt least one lobbyist representing a trade group opposed to the whistle-blower provisions was present at the White House bill-signing ceremony, even as Bush aides made it known that company CEOs had been excluded from it.\nWhite House press secretary Ari Fleischer said whistle-blowers' conversations with individual lawmakers could still be protected, but only if Congress changes its rules and gives lone members the authority to conduct congressionally sanctioned investigations. "This is up to Congress," he said.\nHe said the Bush administration is asking Congress to jump through extra hoops to provide protections they already had approved because government lawyers concluded the statute was too murky to enforce.\nThe interpretation would most likely affect lawmakers who initiate their own inquiries or receive unsolicited information from constituents -- usually those in the minority party lacking control over the launching of formal investigations.\nThe White House position elicited strong rebuttals from Capitol Hill and interest groups, who said the Bush interpretation missed Congress' clearly stated intent to protect whistle-blowers no matter to whom they provided information.\nLawmakers noted that investigations might not even begin until someone brings information forward about wrongdoing, likely first to their own senator or representative.\nTom Devine, legal director for the Government Accountability Project, said the Bush translation ignores the law's plain language and two decades of court decisions on similar provisions for other whistle-blower classes.\n"I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see any room for interpretation here," Grassley said, adding he hopes the White House "isn't going soft on corporate fraud."\nGrassley and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., co-author of the whistle-blower section, urged Bush in a letter to reconsider what they called a flawed interpretation.\nSenate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said he was "dismayed."\n"I can't believe that before the ink is even dry, the White House would be acting to diminish its strength and power," Daschle said. "It does cause me to question how serious this administration is with regard to corporate accountability."\nEven Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, without commenting specifically on the White House move, was skeptical about anything that might diminish protections for corporate informants.\n"Whistle-blowers that are trying to do the right thing and provide information within the government or corporate world, certainly you don't want them to be harassed," said Lott, R-Miss. "Most members of Congress would take a pretty firm position on that"