[国会记录166卷，85号（周三年，2020年5月6日）] [参议院] [网页的S2253-S2267]执行会议[...]提名麦康奈尔先生。主席先生，我们民族的核心业务，而我们打冠状病毒不会停止。本周，参议院委员会正在开展的监督和举行听证会。成员跟踪CARES法的实施。我们正在讨论国会如何进一步加强卫生应对确保官司诉讼的第二疫情不重定向的国家恢复成一名出庭律师富矿做的一切。这里的地板上，我们正在填补联邦政府主要的空缺。今天，我们将确认比尔Evanina带领国家反间谍和安全中心。由于我们国家在家里的挑战抓斗，这是极为重要的是专业技术人员全面完善保持密切关注我们的敌人，敌人和竞争对手。[页S2254] Evanina先生的提名，他将成为非公务员合约雇员的第一参议院确认的董事。这个角色代表了反间谍我国政府的最高级的专家。 Fortunately, this nominee has served for 3 decades as special agent with the FBI, as chief of the CIA's Counterespionage Group, and as one of the principal advisers to the Director of National Intelligence. Mr. Evanina's long professional experience has given him a well- trained eye. He has made clear he is focused on the most serious espionage threats facing our country today: China's insidious efforts to steal our industrial, governmental, technological, and political secrets and Russia's continuing efforts to meddle in our democracy. We have a qualified professional who is tailor-made for an important job. Our colleagues on the Intelligence Committee have reported him out on a unanimous bipartisan basis twice. The vice chairman, Senator Warner, said: ``Bill Evanina should be confirmed without further delay.'' But even still, our Democratic colleagues chose to obstruct his nomination on the floor this week and require a full day of floor time to confirm. Ironically, at the same time, we have also heard some of our Democratic colleagues complain that we spend too much time voting on nominations. It is bad enough to spend 3 years delaying nominations to a historic degree and deliberately making the process painful, but it reached a new level of irony for our Democratic friends to do all that and then complain that their own strategy is inconveniencing their schedules. Essential matters of government do not cease because of the coronavirus. They do not cease because of partisanship either. As long as Senate Democrats continue to make incredibly qualified nominees travel the hard way, including someone whom their own Democratic ranking member openly praised, then, I will assure them they will need to continue to show up and cast votes. The country's business will not go undone. [...] Nomination of William R. Evanina Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the confirmation of William Evanina, whom we will be voting on shortly. Because of his failure to protect whistleblowers, leading whistleblower protection organizations support the opposition to Mr. Evanina's confirmation. I ask unanimous consent that the statements of two organizations, true advocates of whistleblower rights at this crucial time, be printed in the Record There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From the Government Accountability Project, May 6, 2020] Senator Wyden Opposes Senior Intelligence Official's Nomination Over Whistleblowers Washington--Today, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) opposed William Evanina's nomination to serve as the Senate-confirmed Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC). Sen. Wyden's opposition comes days after Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) lifted his 2018 hold on Mr. Evanina, placed in part because ``Mr. Evanina was responsible for developing policies and procedures to address retaliatory security clearance actions'' taken against whistleblowers. Mr. Evanina has yet to produce those policies and procedures, leaving government investigators with little guidance. Government Accountability Project's National Security Analyst Irvin McCullough said, ``Losing your security clearance means losing your livelihood for many Intelligence Community employees. These folks' whistleblowing protections were specifically designed to give special care to whistleblowers whose security clearances are revoked in retaliation for making protected disclosures. However, the Director of National Intelligence never implemented uniform policies and procedures for these whistleblowers, meaning agencies can act as their own fiefdoms when adjudicating these complaints. While a whistleblower at the CIA has the same rights as a whistleblower at the NSA, one may find it much harder to enforce their rights simply because their agency is free to apply harsher standards than the other. That is unacceptable. Bill Evanina was directed to issue universal guidance for all agencies to follow when investigating these types of retaliation complaints, but he hasn't done it. While Mr. Evanina is a dedicated public servant who has contributed greatly to our country's national security, this is his job and he needs to do it. We thank Senator Wyden for taking a stand to protect whistleblowers and ensure accountability inside the Intelligence Community.'' Contact: Andrew Harman, Communications Director. ____ Statement from Liz Hempowicz, Director of Public Policy, Project On Government Oversight ``POGO commends Senator Wyden for standing up for whistleblowers by refusing to confirm Mr. Evanina until this critical issue is resolved. Any security clearance action must be based on the national interests of our country, not personal bias or retaliation. Retaliatory security clearance actions undermine the security clearance process, this is why Congress made it unlawful to retaliate against a whistleblower by restricting their access to classified information. ODNI charged Mr. Evanina's office with the creation of uniform guidance for investigating retaliatory actions, but he has failed to fulfil that mandate even after several years. Thank you to Senator Wyden for standing up for whistleblowers and their right to a fair and equal investigation.'' Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is currently open season on whistleblowers under the Trump administration. Donald Trump and those around him have made it clear that anyone who speaks up about waste, fraud, abuse, or lawbreaking can be punished. If you are a whistleblower under the Trump administration, Donald Trump himself and his echo chamber will publicly call you a liar. They will threaten to make your name public, even at the cost of your physical security. They will prevent your complaints from getting to the Congress, and they will fire the inspectors general who investigate your complaints. Now, more than ever, courageous whistleblowers deserve leaders who are going to protect them, defend them, and vigorously advocate and work for them. They deserve leaders who are going to stand up to Donald Trump and anybody else who tries to punish those who are going to speak truth--truth, especially, to those in power. I am rising today, taking this time of the Senate, to speak on behalf of whistleblowers who feel under siege right now. I am on the floor to oppose the confirmation of William Evanina's track record of inaction and why he should not be the Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center. The fact is that Mr. Evanina has failed, repeatedly, the key test on protecting whistleblower rights. Specifically, he failed to enact whistleblower protections that the Congress required in 2014. Think about that--all those years to get the job done and he didn't do it. That is a 6-year track record of letting down whistleblowers and failing to follow the law. Today, Congress ought to stand up for whistleblowers, protect our democracy, and the rule of law. And when Congress does act and pass whistleblowers' protection legislation the way this body did in 2014, the Congress must not reward those who ignore the whistleblower protection laws. Here, you have a case of exactly that, refusal to implement it for almost 6 years, and the person we are discussing with that track record of not being there for whistleblowers at a crucial time is being considered for a job promotion in the Senate. I want to unpack, for a few minutes, what the world looks like now to a potential whistleblower in today's intelligence community. One of the biggest threats faced by whistleblowers who work with classified information is that their bosses are going to retaliate against them by revoking their security clearances. Without clearances, they can't do their jobs, their livelihoods are ruined, and their families suffer. That threat has a chilling effect on potential whistleblowers and makes it less likely that abuses are going to be investigated and brought to light. The Congress has cared about this for years. It is why, in 2014, the Congress passed legislation specifically prohibiting the revocation of security clearances as a form of retaliation against whistleblowers. Here is what the questions were. What happens if a whistleblower's boss simply insists that they revoked the clearance for some other reason? What if they say it wasn't retaliation for being a whistleblower? Does the whistleblower have any recourse? Is there an appeals process? Or are whistleblowers, who stick their neck out to report waste, fraud, and abuse, just out of luck? The Congress then stood with whistleblowers. In that same 2014 law, Congress required the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense, to develop and implement policies and practices to make that appeals process for whistleblowers a reality. In other words, the Congress recognized that if whistleblowers were truly going to be protected from retaliation, there had to be a meaningful process for them to defend themselves against agencies that always have all the power and always have an obvious incentive to silence and remove those who speak up about abuses This important law was passed by Congress in July 2014. As of that day in 2014, the Director of National Intelligence should have been drafting those [[Page S2257]] policies, but they didn't do it in 2014, or in 2015, or in 2016, or in 2017, or 2018, or 2019--all those years of inaction--and certainly they haven't done it in 2020, especially because of the pandemic, because this is a crucial time when whistleblower protection is needed, now more than ever, because we need those folks to be speaking truth to policymakers. I ask the Senate: Who is at the helm every single one of those years of inaction? The person the Senate is thinking about promoting today, William Evanina. Six years have passed, and Mr. Evanina has not produced those whistleblower protection policies required by law. During that time, there had been five Directors of National Intelligence. The Congress made the Director of the NCSC a Senate- confirmed position. Mr. Evanina kept his job, becoming both Acting Director and the nominee. Meanwhile, Congress reached out to ask: What is the story on these policies? Is anybody actually moving to protect the whistleblowers, as Congress required in 2014? I want to say it again. On Mr. Evanina's watch, nothing happened in 2014, nothing happened in 2015, nothing happened in 2016, and nothing happened in 2017, 2018, 2019, and not in 2020--no policies, lots of empty rhetoric and no policies. Without the actual policies, whistleblowers are vulnerable, and when they tell the truth and push for accountability, they suffer. Every day, Donald Trump steps up his attacks on whistleblowers, on inspectors general, and on the whole system of accountability that has traditionally been bipartisan. Congress has pushed back, passing laws to protect whistleblowers, but the laws have to mean something for the sake of whistleblowers and the rule of law. Congress should not reward those who ignore the law and leave whistleblowers vulnerable. That is what Mr. Evanina has done for 6 years. That is why I cannot support his confirmation. He has defied the law and failed to protect whistleblowers. I am going to state the obvious. When the Congress passes a law, it has to be implemented. When Congress directs the government to protect whistleblowers, that is something that is priority business. In 2014, this body tried to protect whistleblowers. A law was passed. Mr. Evanina has ignored it all these years. That is just not acceptable. Now, with Donald Trump and his administration feeling free to publicly attack whistleblowers again and again and conduct an unremitting assault on the entire whistleblower system, laws to protect them are especially important to our democracy. Day after day, we see the costs of a campaign to silence people who speak up about abuses. We see it in his efforts to cover up his failed, often corrupt, responses to the COVID-19 crisis. We see it across the board. Now is when this country needs officials who are going to demonstrate leadership, who are going to stand up for the brave and the people who are willing to put their neck out to report misconduct. Whistleblowers deserve it, and the country deserves it. Now, the last point I am going to make--my colleagues probably have heard it, and they are going to hear it, I believe, again--is that Mr. Evanina is going to promise once more, after 6 years of empty promises, to complete these critical whistleblower protection policies. What I would ask Senators is this: Enough is enough, right? After 6 years--6 years of unfulfilled promises--the Senate ought to say: The country deserves better. The country deserves action, and the country deserves real protection for whistleblowers. Mr. Evanina remains the Acting Director. I want him--even after he hasn't done it for 6 years, I want him to complete those whistleblower protection policies. When they are completed and the law Congress passed is implemented, it seems to me that is the time for the Senate to discuss again whether Mr. Evanina should get a promotion. Now, last, I just want to come back to how I started. I am not the only one who feels this way. The country's leading whistleblower organizations have made it clear they oppose Mr. Evanina's confirmation due to his failure to produce policies. They include such organizations as the Government Accountability Project, the Project on Government Oversight, Whistleblower Aid, and National Security Counselors. It is not just one Member of the U.S. Senate who is here to say that it is time to finally ensure that these courageous Americans, these patriots, who are willing to come forward when all the incentives in American Government are to stay quiet, not put yourself at risk, don't put your career in jeopardy--when all the incentives are for them to stay quiet, in this country right now, we need them speaking truth more than ever before. I oppose this nomination because there is a long, long track record of not being willing to stand up for these courageous whistleblowers, and I intend to vote against the nominee I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of William Evanina to be the first Senate-confirmed Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, or NCSC. I believe Bill is an American patriot and an American success story. He was raised in Peckville, PA, with very modest means. He was the first in his family to go to college. Prior to joining the FBI in 1996, his first job was with the General Services Administration in Philadelphia. Over his 24-year long career with the FBI, Bill investigated organized crime and violent crimes. He investigated the 9/ 11 terrorist attacks, the anthrax attacks, and the Daniel Pearl kidnapping. Bill also led the counterespionage group at the Central Intelligence Agency. He earned a reputation as the consummate counterintelligence and security professional, fiercely dedicated to the mission with unquestionable honor. Then, in June 2014, then-Director of National Intelligence, Jim Clapper--someone whom I know and respect very much--appointed Bill to serve as the Director of the NCSC. Many technical and complex activities fall under NCSC, including personnel security policy, information technology protection standards, CI cyber operations, supply chain risk management, threat awareness for the U.S. critical infrastructure, and damage assessments from spies and unauthorized disclosures. I have partnered, in my role as vice chairman, with Bill on many topics, to include educating industry about the threats posed by China and reforming an antiquated personnel vetting system. The Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2016 recognized the vital work that NCSC does and made the position subject to Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. In February 2018, President Trump nominated Bill to be the first Senate-confirmed Director. The Senate Intelligence Committee considered the nomination in May of 2018 and unanimously--unanimously, with some concerns from my colleague from Oregon, but unanimously--recommended his confirmation to the full Senate. His nomination didn't get taken up because a Member on the opposite side had a concern. We considered his nomination again in February 2019 in the new Congress, and, again, our committee voted unanimously in favor of his nomination. Unfortunately, over the last 2 years, despite universal recognition of Bill's qualifications for the position, his nomination became entangled in unrelated matters. Despite the delay--and I think Bill had plenty of opportunities to leave the government--Bill stayed the course, committed to the mission above all else. Now, I share my colleague from Oregon's concerns about whistleblowers. I have seen this administration and this White House's disregard for whistleblowers. I tell you this: I believe I have Bill's commitment that the matter of processing the procedures on whistleblower protections will be dealt with. I also feel extraordinarily strongly that at this moment in time, when there is not a single Senate-confirmed appointee in the whole Office of Director of National Intelligence, now more than ever, we need at least one career intelligence professional with a good record, confirmed by this Senate, standing guard over an operation that right now, unfortunately, seems to be directed too often by political appointees that, both, disregard protection for whistleblowers and, in my [[Page S2258]] mind, too often disregard protections for our whole intelligence community. With the fact that we have now gotten rid of the unrelated matters that were precluding Bill's confirmation by my colleague on the majority, I think we deserve to give this nominee what he and the country deserves--a vote. And my hope is a very strong vote of confirmation so that we can send someone who, as a career professional, has a commitment to holding truth first and foremost above political interference. We need Bill Evanina confirmed in this position. I look forward to Mr. Evanina's confirmation today so that he can continue addressing the many important counterintelligence and security challenges facing our Nation. I yield the floor. Cloture Motion The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state. The bill clerk read as follows Cloture Motion We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of William R. Evanina, of Pennsylvania, to be Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center. (New Position) Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Chuck Grassley, Josh Hawley, Joni Ernst, John Barrasso, John Cornyn, Shelley Moore Capito, Deb Fischer, Rob Portman, John Thune, Roger F. Wicker, John Boozman, Roy Blunt, Cindy Hyde- Smith, Mike Braun, Marsha Blackburn. The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the nomination of William R. Evanina, of Pennsylvania, to be Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (New Position), shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk called the roll. Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) would have voted ``yea''. Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz), the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 83, nays 7, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 82 Ex.] YEAS--83 Alexander Baldwin Barrasso Bennet Blackburn Blunt Booker Boozman Braun Cantwell Capito Cardin Carper Casey Cassidy Collins Coons Cornyn Cortez Masto Cotton Cramer Crapo Cruz Daines Durbin Enzi Ernst Feinstein Fischer Gardner Gillibrand Graham Grassley Harris Hassan Hawley Heinrich Hoeven Hyde-Smith Inhofe Johnson Jones Kaine Kennedy King Klobuchar Lankford Lee Loeffler Manchin McConnell McSally Menendez Murkowski Murphy Paul Perdue Peters Portman Reed Risch Roberts Romney Rosen Rounds Rubio Sasse Schumer Scott (FL) Scott (SC) Shaheen Shelby Sinema Smith Sullivan Tester Thune Tillis Toomey Udall Warner Wicker Young NAYS--7 Blumenthal Duckworth Hirono Markey Merkley Van Hollen Wyden NOT VOTING--10 Brown Burr Leahy Moran Murray Sanders Schatz Stabenow Warren Whitehouse The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 83, the nays are 7. The motion is agreed to. [...] The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Under the previous order, all postcloture time is expired. The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Evanina nomination? Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) would have voted ``yea.'' Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz), the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 7, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 83 Ex.] YEAS--84 Alexander Baldwin Barrasso Bennet Blackburn Blunt Booker Boozman Braun Cantwell Capito Cardin Carper Casey Cassidy Collins Coons Cornyn Cortez Masto Cotton Cramer Crapo Cruz Daines Durbin Enzi Ernst Feinstein Fischer Gardner Gillibrand Graham Grassley Harris Hassan Hawley Heinrich Hoeven Hyde-Smith Inhofe Johnson Jones Kaine Kennedy King Klobuchar Lankford Lee Loeffler Manchin McConnell McSally Menendez Murkowski Murphy Paul Perdue Peters Portman Reed Risch Roberts Romney Rosen Rounds Rubio Sasse Schumer Scott (FL) Scott (SC) Shaheen Shelby Sinema Smith Sullivan Tester Thune Tillis Toomey Udall Van Hollen Warner Wicker Young NAYS--7 Blumenthal Duckworth Hirono Markey Merkley Warren Wyden NOT VOTING--9 Brown Burr Leahy Moran Murray Sanders Schatz Stabenow Whitehouse The nomination was confirmed.