Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2019

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, another thing that I shouldn't have to come to the floor to talk about--and it will only take me about 3 or 4 minutes--is that I am still hearing questions about my intent to object to the nomination of William Evanina. These are the same questions I heard last year when I initially placed my hold on Evanina.

By the way, my hold is printed in the Record, and the rules of this Senate require all Members who put a hold on a nomination or a bill, within 2 days after doing that, to put something in the Record, and most Senators aren't following that rule of the Senate. So if you have some disagreement about something and you put a secret hold on and somebody wants to sit down and talk with you to see what is wrong, how are they going to know who it is? That is why, in 2011, on a vote of 96 to 4, Senator Wyden and I got these rules, so there should be no secret holds in the U.S. Senate.

So I am back here again. This statement will be the fourth time since June 4, 2018, that I have publicly expressed my reason for this hold here on the Senate floor. It seems to me no one has been listening to what I have been saying, but what is unusual about that?

As I have said repeatedly, the Judiciary Committee has experienced difficulty in obtaining relevant documents and briefings from the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein personally--I want to emphasize--personally assured me that the Judiciary Committee would receive equal access to information provided to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence with regard to negotiations about the pending subpoenas from that committee related to the 2016 election controversies.

I haven't received equal access, as promised.

On August 7, 2018, I wrote to the Justice Department and pointed out that the House Intelligence Committee received documents related to Bruce Ohr on May 8, 2018, that the Judiciary Committee did not receive.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Department flatout denied that those records had been provided to the House Intelligence Committee.

That wasn't the truth.

After my staff confronted the Department, we eventually received some documents.

There is no reason for stonewalling; there is no reason for lack of cooperation--plain and simple.

In that August 2018 letter, I asked for additional documents based on my equal access agreement with Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein. To date, the Department still hasn't provided a response.

I later learned that the Justice Department has taken the position that Director Coats has prohibited them from sharing the requested records with the committee.

Then, in addition to the outstanding records request, in May 2018, the Director of National Intelligence and the Justice Department provided a briefing in connection with the pending House Intelligence subpoena, to which no Senate Judiciary Committee member was invited.

The Judiciary Committee's attempt to schedule an equivalent briefing has been ignored.

The lack of cooperation, then, obviously, as any one of the 100 Senators would do--the bureaucracy, the faceless bureaucrats, are forcing our hand. Congressional oversight is a constitutional requirement. It seems that in every administration--Republican or Democratic--I am forced to remind them of that constitutional responsibility of oversight, and that responsibility cuts both ways.

The executive branch can't hide documents from one congressional committee, especially one that clearly has oversight jurisdiction over the matter, and at the same time provide those very same documents to another committee.

In this case, my colleagues on the Senate Intelligence Committee have received these documents. I don't blame them at all for getting that information. I say to them: full speed ahead with whatever you need to do.

However, that doesn't mean this Senator has to stand down. It is quite the opposite. I am going to fight until I get what has been promised to me but, more importantly, promised to 21 members of the Judiciary Committee.

I think it is worthy of note that the authorizing resolution that created the Senate Intelligence Committee made clear that other committees still have authority to review intelligence documents.

For example, S. Res. 400 explicitly reserves for other standing committees, such as the Judiciary Committee, independent authority to ``study and review any intelligence activity to the extent that such activity directly affects a matter otherwise within the jurisdiction of such committee'' and ``to obtain full and prompt access to the product of the intelligence activities of any department or any agency'' within that jurisdiction.

The information I seek is connected to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. That court is within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee.

Now, to be fair, the Justice Department has provided access to FISA applications and some of the relevant background materials on more than one occasion. One must give credit where credit is due. However, if they have provided the Judiciary Committee access to that information, what is holding them back from showing us the rest? The secrecy just doesn't make any sense, and it is secrecy that often prevents accountability.

I will not release my hold until the Justice Department upholds its equal access agreement with me and the Judiciary Committee.

In no way am I questioning Mr. Evanina's credentials. Director Coats and others have spoken highly of him. The fact is, if they really do believe in his credentials, then they should produce the requested documents they have promised me more than once.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source