[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 162 (Tuesday, October 15, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5779-S5780]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Whistleblowers

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, we have heard a lot about 
whistleblowers in the past several weeks. There has been an outpouring 
of concern for whistleblowers ever since word came out that there was a 
whistleblower complaint that implicates the current administration.
  A lot of those on the other side of the aisle, expressing support for 
whistleblowers, to the best of my recollection, haven't expressed the 
same level of concern for whistleblowers in the last administration.
  Well, welcome to the table. I hope you stay at the table quite a 
while.
  I have said for years that it is critical that we protect the 
whistleblower process to incentivize the disclosure of true waste, 
fraud, and abuse of the taxpayer's money. Those processes must be 
carefully followed by all whistleblowers, and that process must be 
respected by our government's institutions. Those legal processes are 
especially important for government employees who work in the 
intelligence field. Whistleblowers who act in good faith, who comply 
with the disclosure process set out by law, and who report their 
concerns through proper channels deserve to be heard and deserve to be 
protected.
  I have also said that first-, second-, and third-hand information 
doesn't make or break a whistleblower. If they follow the procedure, 
that is really most important. However, hearsay is a factor to take 
into account when analyzing the strength of underlying allegations. 
Clearly, first-hand knowledge is much more powerful than second- and 
third-hand knowledge. That is just common sense.
  It is common sense no matter what the allegations are or who the 
subject is, and there needs to be a consistent approach in the way that 
Congress conducts oversight. On April 8 of this year, I spoke on this 
Senate floor about the need for consistent oversight. I pointed out 
clear double standards between what the Democrats are doing to the 
Trump administration and the blind eye that they have used on any fact 
pattern that might damage their political narrative.
  Let me remind the Democrats that I threatened to subpoena the 
President's son and that my staff later deposed that son. In fact, I 
investigated alleged Russian collusion with the Trump campaign and 
interviewed more than 10 people connected to the June 2016 famous Trump 
Tower meeting, many of them Trump campaign officials. By the way, I 
also welcomed Democrats' participation in those interviews. The 
Democrats did participate. But, unfortunately, the same equal access 
and transparency doesn't exist in the House of Representatives these 
days as they do oversight of what has gone on with the famous telephone 
call to the Ukrainian President.
  I have routinely challenged the administration's policies and engaged 
in robust oversight to hold this administration accountable. My 
oversight and investigation units have sent out almost 300 letters to 
the executive branch since President Trump took his oath of office. So 
I think I can declare myself an equal-opportunity overseer because I 
seek facts, irrespective of party and no matter where they lead.
  I don't think many of the Democrats today can say the same thing. 
These folks today, who are suddenly so concerned about congressional 
oversight, are the same ones who had no interest whatsoever in 
defending the institutions of the legislative branch when the Obama 
administration was in office.
  Quite frankly, I find it all too convenient that the Democrats today 
have used allegations of wrongdoing against the President that actually 
apply much more clearly to their own political leaders. Let us begin 
down this road with the now-debunked Russia collusion investigation.
  First, the Clinton campaign hired Fusion GPS to do opposition 
research against candidate Trump. Second, the Democratic National 
Committee did the very same thing. Third, Fusion GPS hired Christopher 
Steele, a former British intelligence officer, to compile the famous 
Steele dossier.
  Even James Comey, a former FBI Director, a man who leaked sensitive 
government records to spark a special counsel investigation, called 
that Steele dossier ``salacious and unverified.'' That same Steele 
dossier factored heavily in the FBI's investigation against Trump.

[[Page S5780]]

  Fourth, Fusion GPS then--would you believe it--used Russian 
Government sources for information for that Steele dossier.
  Now, it is a fact, not merely an allegation, that the Clinton 
campaign and the Democratic Party used a foreign intel officer and 
information from the Russian Government to undermine the Trump campaign 
and later the Trump administration. And that is not Trump. No, Trump 
didn't do any of that. It was the Democrats. The Democrats' action 
literally fit their own definition of collusion. Maybe that is why the 
Democrats have failed to seek documents and information relating to how 
and why the now-debunked FBI investigation into Russian collusion 
started, because the Democrats would be front and center in that 
investigation.
  Special Counsel Mueller's investigation didn't look at the Democrats' 
role in collusion, either. After 2 years, more than 2,800 subpoenas, 
approximately 500 search warrants and witness interviews, and $30 
million in taxpayers' money, that report ignored what the Clinton 
campaign and Democrats did. I can see why President Trump would be so 
frustrated at being incorrectly painted as a Russian agent.

  So what is next? Now that the collusion narrative has been destroyed, 
the Democrats have turned to Ukraine. First, the news reports said 
Trump offered a quid pro quo, and then Trump released not only the call 
transcript with the Ukrainian President but the intelligence community 
complaint. Those were extraordinary acts of transparency, and with 
transparency comes accountability. The call and complaint showed no 
quid pro quo. The call showed that Trump was concerned about whether 
Ukraine had a role in the debunked Russia collusion narrative.
  This is a reasonable concern, and it is a concern that I share. 
Accordingly, since I share that concern, on July 20, 2017, I wrote to 
the Justice Department about reports of brazen efforts by the 
Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign to use the 
Government of Ukraine for the express purpose of finding negative 
information on then-Candidate Trump in order to undermine the Trump 
campaign.
  Ukrainian officials reportedly ``helped Clinton's allies research 
damaging information on Trump and his advisers.'' Moreover, Nellie Ohr, 
the wife of Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, stated during a 
congressional interview that Fusion GPS used a Ukrainian politician as 
a source for derogatory material against then-Candidate Trump. It is no 
wonder, then, that President Trump is concerned about Ukraine's 
involvement in the debunked Russian collusion narrative.
  The phone call also showed that he was concerned about then-Vice 
President Biden firing a prosecutor who was investigating one of the 
largest natural gas firms in the world. That firm happened to employ 
Biden's son. Years later, Biden bragged about getting the prosecutor 
fired. This has been seen on television a lot:

       We're not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, 
     you have no authority. You're not the president. The 
     president said--I said, call him. I said, I'm telling you, 
     you're not getting the billion dollars. I said, you're not 
     getting the billion. I'm going to be leaving here in, I think 
     it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I'm 
     leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're 
     not getting the money. Well--

  Then he used a cuss word.

       He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid 
     at the time.

  The Democrats have argued that Trump has tried to get the Government 
of Ukraine to look into this matter to benefit his political campaign. 
Yet it doesn't sound like there is much concern from many on the other 
side of the aisle about what Biden claimed to have done.
  There is also another call transcript I would like to share. This one 
says the following:

       We put some more ideas down to resolve the airport dispute 
     we have with British Airways, USAir, and American Airlines. 
     Would you take another look at that and see if we can get it 
     done?

  Further quoting:

       It's sort of a big deal here. . . . In a political season, 
     it would be big over here to get this open sore resolved. If 
     you could have somebody take a look at it.

  Well, that was President Bill Clinton asking for a political favor 
during the 2000 Presidential election between Al Gore and George Bush. 
I don't hear any objection whatsoever from the Democrats about the 
substance of that call.
  Now the Democrats have also accused the President of obstructing 
Congress. Here, too, I think they have selective memory.
  The Democrats in the Obama Justice Department didn't bat an eye when 
Clinton's associates deleted records subject to congressional subpoena 
and preservation orders. In March of 2015, Secretary Clinton's 
attorneys had a conference call with Paul Combetta, the man who helped 
manage Clinton's nongovernment server. After that call, he deleted 
Clinton's emails with BleachBit, a software program designed to prevent 
forensic recovery. Combetta admitted he lied to the FBI in his initial 
interviews and got immunity from the FBI in exchange for agreeing to 
tell the truth.
  So the Obama administration gave immunity to the person who deleted 
Clinton's emails after a call with her attorneys. To this very day, the 
FBI has yet to explain why they took that course of action. During the 
course of the FBI's investigation, it recovered thousands of work-
related emails that were not turned over to the State Department by 
Secretary Clinton. The FBI also recovered work-related emails that 
Secretary Clinton and her associates apparently deleted. All of this is 
very clear evidence of alienation of Federal records, which happens to 
be a Federal crime.
  What also troubles me about one aspect of the Clinton investigation 
is that the FBI agreed to limit the scope of their review to her time 
as Secretary of State. That eliminated potentially highly relevant 
emails before and after her tenure that could have shed light on why 
she operated a nongovernment server. It also eliminated emails around 
the time of that conference call that could have shown what exactly was 
intended in deleting those emails. That limitation of scope defies 
reason.
  Lastly, the FBI agreed to destroy records and laptops of Clinton's 
associates after reviewing them. That is an astonishing agreement in 
light of the fact that these records could have been relevant to an 
ongoing congressional inquiry that the FBI knew about.
  So where were the Democrats when all of that happened? Where was 
their outrage at the potential obstruction of justice and obstruction 
of congressional oversight? Seems to me that if the Democrats want to 
be consistent, they will have to address what was done and what was 
totally ignored in the Clinton investigation. Russia. Clinton. Ukraine. 
The Democrats have ignored facts relating to these investigations that 
would destroy their political narrative, but facts matter, and the 
facts are not going to go away.
  It is a shame that they have gone down this road in such a blatant 
attempt to remove a duly-elected President from power simply because 
they can't get over the 2016 election. Instead of coming together to 
work for the American people and to pass trade deals and legislation 
that would lower drug costs for seniors, the Democrats choose to gin up 
false political controversies while ignoring the involvement of their 
own political leaders.
  Get over yourselves. All of us will be footnotes to footnotes in 
history. It is the policies that we leave behind that will matter for 
future generations, not smear campaigns.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.