[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.
____________________
