[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 117 (Tuesday, July 8, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4247-S4248]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             WHISTLEBLOWERS

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I would like to address a 
whistleblower complaint that I received the morning before Emil Bove's 
nomination hearing. That is the complaint that was given to the New 
York Times for them to report on it the very same morning.
  One group has publicly accused this chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee of undermining that whistleblower. That group also said:

       I used to be a champion of whistleblowers.

  Then the whistleblower and his lawyers took part in a political hit 
piece on my handling of this situation, and so now my Democratic 
colleagues have all of a sudden found whistleblowers to be of benefit 
to them.
  Let me be absolutely clear. I appreciate the whistleblower's 
disclosure being sent to my office. My door is open to anyone, but that 
doesn't mean that I am going to jump at every allegation in a way that 
some may want this Senator to do. So let me respond with a very short 
history lesson.
  Last Congress, during the Biden administration, I worked to protect 
many whistleblowers, as I have throughout my Senate career. I recall 
with pride the work that I did during the Reagan administration with 
Department of Defense whistleblowers.
  In some cases, my whistleblower work never sees the light of day 
because the situation demands nonpublic attention. In other cases, 
publicity is required.
  In my efforts to protect the IRS whistleblowers who came forward 
during the previous administration, my Democratic colleagues didn't 
join me. In my efforts to protect the Department of Homeland Security 
whistleblowers, my Democratic colleagues refused to join me.

[[Page S4248]]

  And those whistleblowers even disclosed problematic conduct during 
the Trump administration, conduct which that administration actually 
tried to fix.
  In my efforts to protect Health and Human Services' whistleblowers, 
my Democratic colleagues didn't join me in that effort either.
  Last year, I hosted two oversight roundtables, one on the Biden 
administration's failure to protect unaccompanied children from 
trafficking, another on the Biden administration's failure to collect 
DNA at the border, resulting in Americans being subjected to senseless 
crimes from illegals.
  At that roundtable, the witnesses said that Rachel Morin's murder by 
an illegal could have been prevented had his DNA been taken by the 
border people, as required under law.
  At both of these roundtables, my whistleblowers testified. On both 
roundtables, not a single Democrat attended, even though I invited them 
to come.
  During Trump's first term, I made a public statement that it appeared 
the Ukraine complaint followed whistleblower laws. I said that even 
though I had serious concerns about the complaint's substantive 
legitimacy--concerns which have been proven right over time. Now, at 
that particular time, Democratic groups praised me.
  During Trump's first term, I investigated Russian collusion, then-
Ranking Member Feinstein joined me in that effort. We and our staffs 
interviewed Donald Trump, Jr., and other Republicans. As we found out, 
there was nothing there.
  And what ended up happening is the exposure of the Clinton campaign 
and Democratic National Committee paying for the fake Steele dossier.
  Yet, with overwhelming evidence of Biden family corruption, my 
Democratic colleagues didn't do any investigation of that matter. And 
when I say ``overwhelming,'' I made bank records public proving the 
case, and it was still crickets from the other side.
  During the Kavanaugh nomination, many alleged whistleblowers came 
forward. I directed my oversight and investigative staffs to dig in: 45 
witnesses were interviewed, 25 written statements, and an over 400-page 
report.
  Some of those witnesses were sent to us by my Democrat colleagues. 
The conclusion of that, no evidence to support the allegations that 
were brought forward against Kavanaugh. Indeed, what ended up happening 
were several criminal referrals for felonious lies from these same 
witnesses. This committee made four criminal referrals for materially 
false statements and obstruction, two of these four referrals also 
included criminal conspiracy.
  One witness was referred to my staff by a fellow Senator who also 
referred that witness to a reporter. That witness's information was 
used to question Kavanaugh under oath. That witness later publicly 
admitted that they lied.
  When individuals provide fabricated allegations, it diverts committee 
resources when other time-sensitive investigations are ongoing. 
Resources were diverted away from whistleblowers to handle the 
Kavanaugh matter. Such conduct impedes the Senate's work. During 
Kavanaugh, my investigative staff spent hours, days, and many weeks 
investigating one claim after another.
  So getting back to the matter I opened with, Emil Bove, my first 
question to him at a public hearing was directly about the 
whistleblower complaint that my staff received the very single day 
before the hearing.
  So the nominee, Mr. Bove, denied the allegations under oath. The 
Deputy Attorney General has denied the allegations publicly. Two high-
level principals have made outright denials publicly. The whistleblower 
also signed papers acknowledging the Justice Department had complied 
with court orders. So right now that is the state of the play.
  Every day my office receives many whistleblower cases. My 
investigative staff study them and run down the facts.
  There are many government employees who need help. And just this 
year, I have had a lot of success with whistleblowers that were 
discriminated against, investigated against, maybe fired, maybe put on 
administrative leave. But in most cases, it was all an attempt to hurt 
them professionally, besides being out of a job.
  So in regard to the IRS whistleblowers, they were finally helped--one 
of whom is a Democrat. My Department of Homeland Security 
whistleblowers got their guns, badges, and retirement back. On another 
example, I spent significant time helping FBI whistleblowers, and it 
appears their cases are trending in the right direction.
  And guess what. One of those whistleblowers is also a Democrat.
  I would always welcome more bipartisan oversight. It is just that the 
Democrats apparently don't want to join my efforts.
  So when I read unfounded public broadsides about my operation in that 
political piece I have already referred to, let what I said today be a 
reminder of my dedication to helping the whistleblower community. And 
let me also remind everyone that sometimes what I do to protect 
whistleblowers is nonpublic, as it should be. And I don't care about 
that. All I care about are the results of helping whistleblowers and 
bringing attention to the wrong that the whistleblowers say are wrong 
within our government.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________