Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[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.
____________________
