United States Senator from Oklahoma -- Thomas Allen "Tom" Coburn, M.D.
(this may be nothing but I thought I would share)
From wikipedia:
Coburn was involved in the Bush Administration's struggle with Congress over whistleblower rights. The Supreme Court dealt a major blow to government whistleblowers when, in the case of Garcetti v. Ceballos, 04-473, it ruled that government employees did not have protection from retaliation by their employers under the First Amendment of the Constitution.[38] The free speech protections of the First Amendment have long been used to shield whistleblowers from retaliation by whistleblower attorneys.
In response to the Supreme Court decision, the House passed H.R. 985, the Whistleblower Protection Act of 2007. President George W. Bush, citing national security concerns, promised to veto the bill should it be enacted into law by Congress. The Senate's version of the Whistleblower Protection Act (S. 274) was approved by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on June 13, 2007. However, it has yet to reach a vote by the Senate as a hold has been placed on the bill by Coburn.[39] Coburn's hold effectively prevents passage of the bill, which has bipartisan support in the Senate.
Coburn's website features a news item about United Nations whistleblower Mathieu Credo Koumoin, a former employee for the U.N. Development Program in West Africa, who has asked U.N. ethics chief Robert Benson for protection under the U.N.'s new whistleblower protection rules.[40] The site has a link to the "United Nations Watch" of the Republican Office of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information and International Security, of which he is the ranking minority member.[41] Coburn's website also features a tip line for potential whistleblowers on government waste and fraud.
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the First Amendment free speech protections for government employees. The plaintiff in the case was a district attorney who claimed that he had been passed up for a promotion for criticizing the legitimacy of a warrant. The Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that because his statements were made pursuant to his position as a public employee, rather than as a private citizen, his speech had no First Amendment protection.