[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 177 (Wednesday, November 6, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6428-S6430]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   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.