[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 177 (Wednesday, November 6, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6427-S6430]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Whistleblowers

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, before I get into the substance of my 
remarks on a very serious subject, I want to thank my dear friend from 
Kansas for his nice words about Johnny Isakson.
  There is no word short of ``beloved'' that you would affix before 
Johnny Isakson's name in terms of this Chamber, and I think that would 
probably be true for every single Member--certainly the Senator from 
Kansas and certainly the Senator from New York.
  On July 30, 1778, the Continental Congress passed unanimously the 
following resolution: ``Resolved, that it is the duty of all persons in 
the service of the United States . . . to give the earliest information 
to Congress or other proper authority of any misconduct, frauds or 
misdemeanors committed by any officers or persons in the service of 
these states.''
  That was in the Continental Congress before our Nation was even 
formed--a duty of citizens to protect the American people from those in 
government who might conduct misconduct, fraud, or misdemeanors.
  From the earliest days of our Republic, our government has 
acknowledged the vital role that whistleblowers play in ensuring good 
governance and rooting out corruption, malfeasance, and self-dealing.
  Two nights ago, appallingly, at a political rally, President Trump 
and a Member of this Chamber, the junior Senator from Kentucky, 
publicly and explicitly urged the press to disclose the identity of the 
Federal whistleblower whose complaint triggered an impeachment inquiry 
in the House of Representatives.
  A few days later, the same junior Senator threatened to reveal the 
identity of the whistleblower himself.
  I cannot stress enough how wrong and dangerous--dangerous--these 
efforts are.

[[Page S6428]]

  The United States is a nation of laws. Whistleblower laws have 
existed since the founding of our Republic to protect patriotic 
Americans who come forward and stand up for our Constitution. We don't 
get to determine when these laws apply and when they don't. We don't 
get to decide if the law applies whether you like what the 
whistleblower said or whether you don't. These are laws. No person--no 
person--is above the law.
  This whistleblower, whose complaint was deemed credible and urgent by 
a Trump appointee, is protected by these statutes. There is no legal 
doubt about that. Every single Member of this body--every single one--
should stand up and say that it is wrong to disclose his or her 
identity. That is what my colleague Senator Hirono will ask us to do in 
a moment.
  Before she does, I want to thank my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle who have spoken up in defense of whistleblower protections. 
Some of my Republican colleagues have spent their careers defending 
whistleblowers. We need them today. We need these Republican 
colleagues, who should be here standing up for the protection of 
whistleblowers.
  The threats we have seen over the last few days are so egregious--so 
egregious--that they demand bipartisan outrage from one end of this 
Chamber to the other, whether you are a Democrat, Republican, 
Independent, liberal, moderate, or conservative.
  What is happening here is another erosion of the values of this 
Republic for political expediency. Exposing the whistleblower's 
identity would endanger their health and safety and that of their 
families. It would also be a chilling message to future patriots that 
they do their duty to report wrongdoing at the risk of exposure, 
retaliation, and retribution.
  Why don't we see a single other Republican stand up in favor of this 
today? We should.
  Let's send a message today that the Senate reaffirms our Nation's 
longstanding tradition of defending whistleblowers. I urge every single 
Member of the Senate to support it, and I recognize somebody who has 
been valiant in this fight to protect the duty enshrined by the 
Continental Congress and the Constitution, my good friend, the Senator 
from Hawaii.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 408

  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, if you work for the Federal Government, 
you work for the people. You have a duty by law to come forward to 
report misconduct, fraud, misdemeanors, and other crimes going on in 
government.
  This duty has been on the books since 1778. Why? Because people 
working in government are in a pretty good position to see when 
something is not right in their workplace.
  We want a government that is doing right by us.
  It is not easy for whistleblowers to come forward to report 
wrongdoing in government. That is why we have laws that protect a 
whistleblower from intimidation, discrimination, and retaliation, and 
laws that protect their identity.
  On August 12, a whistleblower--and we don't know whether this was a 
man or a woman, so for ease of reference, I will refer to the 
whistleblower as ``she''--came forward, as the law required, to file a 
complaint with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.
  The complaint alleged that the President was ``using the power of his 
office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. 
election.''
  The inspector general, also as required, determined that the 
complaint was credible and involved an urgent concern.
  The House, on learning of the whistleblower's complaint, began to ask 
questions. What did the House investigation uncover? That the 
whistleblower's complaint was right.
  Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine; Tim Morrison, the top 
Russia and Eastern Europe expert on the National Security Council; and 
others have corroborated the whistleblower's complaint about the 
President.
  Just yesterday, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon 
Sondland, confirmed that security assistance for Ukraine was dependent 
on the Ukranian Government's launching an investigation into the 
President's political opponents.
  Let's face it. What Donald Trump did was wrong. It is wrong for the 
President of the United States to shake down the Ukrainian President to 
get dirt on his political rivals in return for almost $400 million in 
U.S. military aid to help Ukraine fight Russia. Faced with growing 
evidence of Donald Trump's wrongdoing, what happens? What happens is a 
President and his minions attack the whistleblower, suggesting that she 
was spying and guilty of treason.
  Donald Trump has threatened the whistleblower with ``Big 
Consequences''--capital B, capital C--and put her safety at risk with 
comments such as: ``I do not know why a person that defrauds the 
American public should be protected.'' Guess what, he wasn't talking 
about himself.
  Donald Trump's devoted rightwing allies have been quick to echo and 
amplify the President's attacks. The whistleblower's own attorney 
warned Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire that the 
President's threats are compromising her personal safety. Just last 
Sunday, Donald Trump said: ``There have been stories written about a 
certain individual, a male, and they say he's the whistleblower . . . 
if it's him, you guys ought to release the information.''
  House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy also insisted that the 
whistleblower ``should come before the committee . . . he needs to 
answer the questions.'' While speaking at a Trump campaign rally, my 
colleague from Kentucky who has joined me on the floor today, demanded 
that the media print the name of the whistleblower. Representative   
Jim Jordan, one of Donald Trump's fiercest allies, dismissed the 
whistleblower as biased and called for her identity to be made public.
  With his attacks on the whistleblower, Donald Trump has made clear 
that he will use the full power of his office to bully, intimidate, and 
threaten anyone who dares to stand up to him or to speak out against 
him.
  Can you imagine what a young career foreign service officer at the 
State Department might do after seeing the President tell the world 
that whistleblowers are spies who defraud our government? Do you think 
that person would risk destroying their career and suffer the wrath of 
Donald Trump and his fiercest allies and supporters in reporting the 
President's misconduct?
  How about a career employee at the Department of Defense who sees 
that military aid is being held up to pressure a foreign government to 
help the President of the United States win reelection? Do you think 
that Defense Department employee would risk being accused of betraying 
our country and acting as a spy?
  Let's be clear here: The real purpose of these attacks is to scare 
anyone else who may be thinking of coming forward to stay silent. We 
see the President, time and time again, through tweets, in interviews, 
at his rallies, openly attacking anyone who questions or disagrees with 
him. The chilling effect of what the President is doing cannot be 
overstated. It totally undercuts our whistleblower laws. These are not 
normal times. In normal times, we would be protecting whistleblowers. 
That is what this resolution does.
  The resolution I am presenting affirms that if anyone expects public 
servants to report misconduct, we have a corresponding duty to protect 
their identity and safeguard them from retaliation, from threats. The 
whistleblower has done her duty. Now, we need to do ours.
  Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous 
consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 
408 introduced earlier today; that the resolution be agreed to; the 
preamble be agreed to; and the motions to reconsider be considered made 
and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2798

  Mr. President, I support whistleblowers, and I do think they have a 
role to play in keeping government accountable. They should not lose 
their jobs or be prosecuted because of their willingness to speak, but 
what we have seen over the last few years is that we have a system that 
we should continue to refine.

[[Page S6429]]

  When Edward Snowden exposed the breadth of unconstitutional 
government spying, that everything you do can be seen and stored by the 
government without cause, without an individualized order, in secret, 
in bulk, in defiance of the Fourth Amendment, not one finger was raised 
by those voices who are so proud now to defend whistleblowers, not one 
of them stood up for Edward Snowden.
  Many, in fact, in Congress condemned him. They wanted to bring him to 
trial. Senators talked about hanging him from the closest tree, about 
executing him. People called into question his motives. Hillary Clinton 
implied that Edward Snowden was a foreign spy. Chuck Schumer, who now 
has such outrage and defense of the whistleblower statute, lifted not 
one finger for Edward Snowden. In fact, he called him a coward.
  So really I think that the outrage we see here is selective outrage, 
and it is because they are intent on overturning the election of the 
people. They are intent on removing Trump from office, no matter what, 
and they will use whatever means they can to do it.
  Interestingly though, despite all of these people calling Edward 
Snowden a traitor, Congress ended up abolishing the bulk collection 
program that he exposed. Congress knew that they had done something 
illegal by collecting all of your metadata, all of your phone call 
data, without the permission of a judge and that it violated the Fourth 
Amendment.
  They knew that he had probably become the greatest whistleblower of 
all time; yet where are the voices defending Edward Snowden now? Not 
one of these people who fake outrage over this whistleblower and 
President Trump and impeachment--not one of them will stand up for 
Edward Snowden. They would still put him in jail for life, if they 
could.
  In the end, we did end bulk collection because Edward Snowden bravely 
came forward and said that the government was lying to us, that James 
Clapper, now a big President Trump hater, came before the Senate and he 
lied directly to Senator Wyden when he said: We are not collecting your 
data.
  Yet where is Edward Snowden in all of this, as these great defenders 
of the whistleblower statute are here? Not a word for Edward Snowden. 
Snowden himself said that he didn't have adequate protection to bring 
his claims internally because he was a government contractor and not an 
employee and not subject to the whistleblower statute.

  Subsequently, Congress fixed that. Now, contractors in the 
intelligence community can make whistleblower claims. I agree with 
that. There are also now protections for some other contractors. We 
should extend and expand the protections, and we should make this 
protection retroactive to account for people like Snowden.
  So the bill I will introduce today will expand the Whistleblower Act, 
it will be made retroactive so Edward Snowden can come home to live in 
his own country. All he did was expose that his government was not 
obeying the Constitution. If this fake outrage here is really towards 
whistleblowing, why don't we make it retroactive and defend the most 
famous whistleblower of all time? That is what my bill would do.
  While Snowden's disclosures were in defense of the Fourth Amendment, 
the Sixth Amendment guarantees an individual the right to face their 
accuser; yet the House of Representatives has been conducting a secret 
impeachment inquiry based on secret claims made by a secret 
whistleblower.
  My bill would make clear that the Sixth Amendment is not superseded 
by statutes and that the President should be afforded the same rights 
that we all should, to understand the nature of the allegations brought 
against them and to face their accuser. This is in the Sixth Amendment.
  So for all the caterwauling about whistleblower statutes, there is a 
high law of the land. It is the Constitution. It is the Bill of Rights. 
The Sixth Amendment says if you are accused of a crime, you get to face 
your accuser.
  In fact, there was a resolution last week placed by 50 members of the 
Republican Caucus that condemns the process going on in the House. It 
condemns it because it says specifically, in the resolution signed by 
50 Republicans, that the President should get to face his accusers, 
that he should have counsel and call on witnesses and to understand the 
basis of the charges against him.
  See, here is the thing: The whistleblower should be called because 
they are making accusations against the President. That is the Sixth 
Amendment. We don't do away with the Sixth Amendment because we are 
talking about impeachment or talking about the President. But the 
whistleblower is also a material witness. The whistleblower is a 
material witness because he worked for Joe Biden. He worked for Joe 
Biden when Joe Biden and Hunter Biden were involved in corruption in 
Ukraine.
  This person worked on the Ukraine desk. This person traveled to 
Ukraine. This person was involved with aid. So when Joe Biden says we 
are going to deny aid to Ukraine unless you hire a prosecutor that is 
looking into my son's company that is paying Hunter Biden $50,000 a 
month, don't you think we have the right to call these people? Don't 
you think that Joe Biden should appear? Don't you think that Hunter 
Biden should appear? Absolutely, the whistleblower should appear 
because he is an accuser, but also because he is a material witness to 
the conflict of interest scandal that involves Hunter Biden and Joe 
Biden.
  Fifty Republican Senators signed on to a resolution that says the 
President should get to face his accusers. My bill, the Whistleblower 
Act of 2019, would make that clear, that the Sixth Amendment is not 
superseded by statutes and that the President should be afforded the 
right to understand the nature of the allegations brought against him 
and that the President should get to face his accusers.
  Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senator modify her request so that, instead, the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill, the Whistleblower 
Act of 2019, S. 2798, introduced earlier today; I further ask that the 
bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Does the Senator so modify her 
request?
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, reserving my right to object.
  My colleague's bill was just dropped literally on my lap just now. I 
certainly have not had a chance to read through the bill, but the last 
paragraph of this bill--which by the way I think it is called the 
Whistleblower Protection Act--anyway, the last section of his bill 
caught my eye, and I will read it to you.
  ``Section 5. Ensuring Sixth Amendment protections. Congress reaffirms 
that in the case of criminal proceedings, prosecutions, and impeachment 
arising from the disclosures of whistleblowers, that the accused has a 
right to confront his or her accuser in such proceedings and that right 
is not superseded by the Whistleblower Protection Act.''
  So suddenly the Sixth Amendment right for a defendant to confront the 
accuser is being applied to the impeachment proceeding. It has never 
been done before. By doing this, the Senator from Kentucky, in my view, 
is truly undermining the Whistleblower Protection Act. So to call his 
bill the Whistleblower Protection Act of 2019 is, in my view, 
laughable.
  By the way, in this particular instance we don't need the 
whistleblower's testimony. The whistleblower's complaint, the substance 
of her complaint, has been corroborated numerous times. So all this is 
to send the message out there that all you people who work for the 
Federal Government, if you see some kind of wrongdoing misdeed going 
on, don't come forward because expect retribution, expect the President 
to come after you, expect the President's minions to come after you.
  What is the point of having a whistleblower statute which--you know, 
which is a duty, it imposes a duty on Federal employees to come 
forward--and at the same time as we impose this duty, we have the good 
Senator's resolution saying: Yes, come forward, but we are going to out 
you, subject you to threats, intimidation, retaliation.
  This whistleblower's own attorney has said that her safety is in 
question, so using the Sixth Amendment and

[[Page S6430]]

sort of tie it to impeachment proceedings is--I am just flabbergasted.
  Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard. Is there objection to 
the original request?
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  I am disappointed that any Senator would come to the floor and find 
the Bill of Rights laughable. The Sixth Amendment is an important part 
of our Constitution, and the right to face your accuser is incredibly 
important. It is disappointing that an actual U.S. Senator would come 
to the floor and say that it was laughable to apply the Bill of Rights 
to the President. I am disappointed that it has come to this.
  I will hope that Americans would look at this and say, absolutely, 
the President deserves the same protections that the rest of us 
deserve.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. I think the Senator from Kentucky should listen because I 
certainly did not find the Sixth Amendment laughable. I found his 
resolution, calling it the Whistleblower Protection Act, which in fact 
undermines whistleblower protections, appalling and laughable.
  With that, I, once again, object to his request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.