[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 200 (Wednesday, December 19, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7853-S7854]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    NOMINATION OF WILLIAM R. EVANINA

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today--and it was my intent to ask 
unanimous consent with my colleague, the vice chairman of the 
Intelligence Committee--for the Senate to confirm Bill Evanina as 
Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center.
  Bill has served our Nation for over 23 years, including service as a 
supervisory special agent and assistant section chief with the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation. Prior to joining the NCSC, Bill served as the 
chief of counterespionage at the CIA.
  Bill has served honorably as the Director of the NSC since June of 
2014, before the position required Senate confirmation, necessitating a 
vote by the U.S. Senate. Here is a guy who has served for 3\1/2\ years, 
and we changed the statute and said that this is a position that the 
Senate needs to confirm in the future, and, all of a sudden, the same 
guy who has been there is now being held up.
  Intelligence threats facing our Nation are numerous. They are 
growing, and they are significant. Bill is experienced, professional, 
and understands the threats through real world experience. We need a 
Director who can ably lead our Nation's counterintelligence security 
activities during a period of unprecedented threats. We need someone 
who can actively and effectively engage and educate the private sector 
on the threats--something Bill has done time and again.
  Director Evanina was unanimously approved by the Senate Select 
Committee on Intelligence in May, and it is time this body moved 
forward. We cannot continue to let politics or nongermane issues get in 
the way of confirming good people.
  I ask this body to confirm Bill Evanina as Director of the National 
Counterintelligence Security Center without further delay.
  I yield to my vice chairman of the Intel Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to join with the chairman of the 
committee and basically echo what he has said.
  Bill Evanina is a true professional. I have had a chance to work with 
him for a number of years in my role on the Intelligence Committee and, 
more recently, as vice chair. Let me cite one example.
  Outside of his lane--not a duty as required--Bill has been a 
consistent voice in raising concerns about the challenges and threats 
that are posed by China. As a matter of fact, the chairman and I were 
recently in Austin, and Bill came down and gave one of the most 
powerful briefs I have heard,

[[Page S7854]]

which he has done a number of times for the committee and increasingly 
for the business community, talking in an honest, straightforward way 
about the security threats, the intellectual property theft, the host 
of concerns that confront our country by China.
  Bill Evanina is one of those rare public servants, and I don't 
think--as the chairman has pointed out, since he received unanimous 
confirmation from the Intelligence Committee--that there is any 
question about his service, any question about his temperament, any 
question about his ability to do the job--no partisan challenges to 
him, as the chairman has mentioned. He has served in his current 
position for 3\1/2\ years.
  We do him and other intelligence professionals a disservice when they 
are arbitrarily held up for confirmation, not because of a substantive 
issue that this individual may have performed or not performed but 
because of a totally extraneous issue.
  My intent today, along with the chairman, was to ask unanimous 
consent that the Senate proceed to the Executive Calendar nomination, 
getting Bill Evanina permanently confirmed to this job. He is an 
individual who, if we are not careful and don't act on soon, may decide 
to take his extraordinary professional skills and find much higher 
remuneration in the private sector rather than serving our country.
  I am not going to ask for that UC today in deference to one of our 
colleagues who has lodged an objection to the nomination. It is my hope 
that before the end of this session, the chairman and I will come to 
the floor one more time and make this request.
  I implore the Member who has a challenge against Mr. Evanina, again, 
not based on his performance, not based on his politics, not based on 
any professionalism he brings to this job--my hope is that the Member 
will reflect and decide to remove this extraneous objection and allow 
this great professional to be confirmed to a position he has already 
served in for the last 3\1/2\ years.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

                          ____________________

[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 201 (Thursday, December 20, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Page S7974]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    NOMINATION OF WILLIAM R. EVANINA

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, yesterday one of my colleagues came to 
the floor to talk about my objection to the unanimous consent request 
relating to the nomination of William R. Evanina.
  When I noticed my intention to place a hold on this nominee back in 
June of this year, I made it very clear to the public and to the 
administration my reasons for doing so, and I put my statement of those 
reasons in the Record. I have done that consistently, not only since 
the rules of the Senate require every Member to do that but even before 
that rule was ever put in place. When I put a hold on a bill or a hold 
on a nominee, I don't ever want anybody to, say, put the adjective 
``secret'' before the word ``hold'' because there is nothing secret 
about what I do when I place a hold on something.
  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.
  For example, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein personally 
assured me the Senate Judiciary Committee would receive equal access to 
information that had been provided to the House Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence with regard to any concessions in its 
negotiations regarding pending subpoenas from that committee related to 
the 2016 election controversies. I have not received equal access, as 
promised, on that front.
  On August 7 of this year, I wrote to the Justice Department and 
pointed out that the House Intelligence Committee had received 
documents related to Bruce Ohr that we had not received. The Department 
initially denied those records had been provided to the House 
Intelligence Committee. After my staff confronted the Department on 
that misinformation, we eventually received some Bruce Ohr documents.
  In that 2018 letter I have referred to, I asked for documents based 
on my equal access agreement with Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, 
and as you might expect, I have not received a response to date.
  This morning, I had Acting Attorney General Whitaker in my office for 
issues he wanted to bring up, but I also had an opportunity to present 
him with three pages--fairly finely printed--that had a multitude of 
requests for information that in my constitutional role of oversight of 
the Justice Department, they should be providing to me. Some of them 
have nothing to do with this hold, but the Department does have a 
pretty good record of not responding to this chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee on things I have a constitutional responsibility to do.
  I also have a promise from these Department heads that they will 
supply information when Congress asks for it. Since that 2018 letter, I 
have learned the Justice Department has taken the position that 
Director Coats has prohibited them from sharing the requested records 
with the committee.
  In addition to the records that were requested in May of this year, 
the Director of National Intelligence and the Justice Department 
provided a briefing in connection with a pending House Intel subpoena 
to which no Senate Judiciary Committee member was invited. Thus far, 
the committee's attempts to schedule any equivalent briefing have been 
ignored. The administration's lack of cooperation has forced my hand. 
So then, I continue to press for this hold on this nominee.
  My objection, if there were ever a request for a unanimous consent to 
move ahead, is not intended to question the credentials of Mr. Evanina 
in any way whatsoever. However, the executive branch must recognize it 
has an ongoing obligation to respond to congressional inquiries in a 
timely and reasonable manner.

                          ____________________