[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 182 (Thursday, November 14, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H8829-H8830]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we are involved in a very serious process to 
determine whether the President of the United States has committed high 
crimes and misdemeanors.
  The Constitution provides for the removal of high officials who 
violate their oath of office, who violate the powers of their office, 
and who commit bribery or treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors.
  In the course of that process, we have been involved with numerous 
people asking for the whistleblower to testify. I will not speak to the 
substance of the consideration that is ongoing with respect to the 
impeachment of the President of the United States, but I do want to 
speak pointedly to the calls from so many that the whistleblower be 
identified.
  The whistleblower, of course, has no direct evidence to offer. What 
the whistleblower is is somebody who responded to ``if you see 
something, say something.''
  We have witnesses to wrongdoing all over this country and all over 
the world, and our police departments have a line that is called an 
anonymous tip line so that somebody who sees something will say 
something. It is anonymous so that we do not intimidate those people or 
expose them to danger for coming forward to out criminal behavior.
  The President of the United States has made an analogy to this 
information coming forward as the result of spying, treason, which, as 
we all know, according to the President, can subject someone to capital 
punishment.
  Why do we have a whistleblower statute? We have a whistleblower 
statute,

[[Page H8830]]

Mr. Speaker, because we want to encourage people, and we want to not 
expose them to danger or intimidation--including from the most powerful 
person on Earth, the President of the United States--or retaliation. 
Yet we continue to hear: Tell us who the whistleblower is. Let us throw 
the whistleblower into the lion's den.
  In fact, of course, what we do know is the whistleblower, the 
information that was brought forward, A, led to the release of funds to 
the Ukrainians just shortly thereafter and, in addition, has led to 
substantive testimony corroborating the information that the 
whistleblower either saw or heard.
  If you see something, say something.
  It is irresponsible, it is wrong, and, in fact, in almost every 
jurisdiction, there are criminal penalties for threatening a witness, 
for impeding justice.

  So, Mr. Speaker, when people say, ``Show me the whistleblower,'' what 
they are doing is not only trying to intimidate that whistleblower, 
they are trying to intimidate every other whistleblower who might deign 
to come forward because they saw something or heard something.
  I would hope all of my colleagues would think to themselves: Why do 
we have a whistleblower statute?
  I represent 62,000 Federal employees, and, very frankly, I want them 
to have the confidence to come forward if they see wrongdoing in the 
Federal Government, even if it is about the President of the United 
States, and even if the President of the United States wants to make an 
analogy to a capital offense--despicable--undermining the very essence 
of why the Congress of the United States enacted a whistleblower 
statute and the essence of why police departments all over the United 
States have anonymous tip lines and why almost every State has a 
statute which imposes a criminal penalty for the intimidation of 
witnesses.
  We are a nation of laws, not of men. We are proud of that. But if we 
are to be a nation whose top leaders try to intimidate those who would 
come forward if they see something or hear something and they say 
something, then we will be a lesser nation, less focused on a nation of 
laws.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that Members on both sides of the aisle, 
political pundits, commentators, and, yes, the President of the United 
States would cease and desist from trying to intimidate this 
whistleblower and all of those who may be whistleblowers.
  The intent of that legislation, the intent of those protections, the 
intent of witness protection statutes and intimidation of witnesses is 
so that we will get at the truth and that our government of the people, 
by the people, and for the people will be more honest, will be more 
safe, will be more just.

                          ____________________