Expressing Sense of the House with Respect to Whistleblower Complaint Made to Inspector General of Intelligence Community

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHIFF. Res. 576.

Madam Speaker, we are here today because, over a month ago, a courageous employee or detailee or contractor within the intelligence community brought to the inspector general a complaint that the inspector general reviewed. He had 14 days to review that complaint.

The inspector general found that complaint credible, found that complaint urgent, and found that that complaint should be provided to Congress, as the whistleblower intended.

That complaint then went to the Director of National Intelligence, who had 1 week to review it. Then the statute says that complaint shall be provided to the committee--not ``may,'' not ``might,'' not ``if the DOJ doesn't write an opinion,'' not ``if the White House doesn't like it.'' It says ``shall'' transmit to the committee.

The reason Congress wrote the statute that way is that, particularly in the intelligence community, we are reliant on whistleblowers. Through the vast majority of our hearings, there are no witnesses. They are not conducted in open session. There are not outside stakeholders who can tell us that what this agency represented or that agency said is not correct.

We are reliant on the intelligence community to self-report, and most of the time they do. When they don't, we are completely reliant on whistleblowers. If the whistleblower process doesn't work, if the subject of a complaint by a whistleblower can be held up by the subject of that complaint--that is, if the whistleblower says that the impropriety that they have evidence of was committed by X person, and X person is given the discretion to decide whether Congress ever sees that report--that system is broken. That is certainly not how Congress intended it.

Presuming that this complaint involves the conversation that we are now witness to because some readout of that conversation was made public, that whistleblower may have been trying to communicate to Congress that the President of the United States was pressuring a foreign President to manufacture dirt on his political opponent for help in his Presidential campaign and doing so at a time when the President of the United States was withholding military support that we approved on a bipartisan basis.

Now we see that readout says that, after the Ukraine President expressed the need for further arms to the United States, our President said: We are doing a lot for Ukraine. We are doing more for Ukraine than other countries. But you know something? There is not much reciprocity here. I have a favor I would like to ask. I want you to investigate my opponent, and I am going to have my Attorney General and my personal lawyer follow up with you.

This was the constant theme of the President's request to the President of Ukraine. It wasn't, what are the national security needs of Ukraine? It wasn't, what are the economic needs of Ukraine? It wasn't, what are the separatists doing in Ukraine?

It was: This is what I want from you. I have done so much for Ukraine. We have done so much for Ukraine. This is what we want of you.

The idea that a complaint with these allegations, if indeed this complaint is about this call, would be withheld from Congress and would be withheld on the basis of an opinion written by the Attorney General, someone who was mentioned in that very conversation, screams of conflict of interest, if not far worse.

When we brought this resolution up a month after this complaint was filed, and we brought it up in the Rules Committee last night, the argument was that this is premature. The argument here today is that this is postmature. I guess this is never mature. It is never mature for the Congress to insist that the Director follow the law.

Apparently, we need second opinions on whether ``shall'' really means ``shall.'' That is why we are here.

If we don't validate the whistleblower process, if we leave the whistleblower unprotected, even as the President suggests that the whistleblower has somehow betrayed his or her country, that system is broken, meaning corruption will not be exposed. The corruption here involves the suborning of our national security to our President's political needs. That is what is at stake here.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, with respect to my colleague, the only corruption the President seems to be concerned about is corruption that he is not involved with, and that seems to be an increasingly narrow category.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Carson).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source