Open Hearing: Nomination of Daniel Coats to be Director of National Intelligence

[Senate Hearing 115-45] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 115-45 OPEN HEARING TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF HON. DAN COATS TO BE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2017 __________ Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Intelligence [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov __________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 24-745 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com. SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE [Established by S. Res. 400, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.] RICHARD BURR, North Carolina, Chairman MARK R. WARNER, Virginia, Vice Chairman JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California MARCO RUBIO, Florida RON WYDEN, Oregon SUSAN COLLINS, Maine MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico ROY BLUNT, Missouri ANGUS KING, Maine JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma JOE MANCHIN, West Virginia TOM COTTON, Arkansas KAMALA HARRIS, California JOHN CORNYN, Texas MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky, Ex Officio CHUCK SCHUMER, New York, Ex Officio JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Ex Officio JACK REED, Rhode Island, Ex Officio ---------- Chris Joyner, Staff Director Michael Casey, Minority Staff Director Kelsey Bailey, Chief Clerk CONTENTS ---------- FEBRUARY 28, 2017 OPENING STATEMENTS Burr, Hon. Richard, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from North Carolina. 1 Warner, Hon. Mark R., Vice Chairman, a U.S. Senator from Virginia 2 WITNESSES Chambliss, Hon. Saxby, former U.S. Senator from Georgia.......... 4 Coats, Hon. Dan, Nominated to be Director of National Intelligence................................................... 6 Prepared statement........................................... 12 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Letter dated February 28, 2017, from the Electronic Privacy Information Center............................................. 44 Prehearing Questions and Responses............................... 50 OPEN HEARING TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF HON. DAN COATS TO BE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ---------- TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2017 U.S. Senate, Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m. in Room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard Burr (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. Committee Members Present: Senators Burr, Warner, Risch, Rubio, Collins, Blunt, Lankford, Cotton, Cornyn, McCain, Wyden, Heinrich, King, Manchin, and Harris. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, CHAIRMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA Chairman Burr. I call this hearing to order. I'd like to welcome our witness today, Senator Dan Coats, President Trump's nominee to be the next Director of National Intelligence. Dan, congratulations on your nomination and welcome back. I'm sure you didn't expect to be walking in these halls so soon after your retirement. I'd also like to welcome back your wife and my good friend Marsha, and I want to thank her for her support for you and her willingness to share you with the rest of the country. I've known both of you for many years and I've seen firsthand the strength of the relationship that you so thoughtfully describe in your statement for the record. Our goal in conducting this hearing is to enable the committee to consider Senator Coats' qualifications and to allow for thoughtful deliberation by our members. He's already provided substantive written responses to more than 148 questions presented by the committee and its members. Today, of course, members will be able to ask additional questions and hear from Senator Coats in both open and closed session. Dan Coats comes to us with more than 34 years of honorable service in the House, the Senate, and as the U.S. Ambassador to Germany. Those of us who have had the good fortune to work with Dan know the depth of his commitment to the intelligence community and, more importantly, to its workforce. Senator Coats, you've been asked to lead the intelligence community in a time of profound threat and challenge. We're facing threats from State and non-State actors alike and are engaged in a robust debate at home on the scope and the scale of intelligence collection and what authorities are right, appropriate, and lawful. I expect you will be a forceful advocate for the intelligence community in those discussions, while maintaining an unwavering respect for the rule of law. I have complete trust that you will lead the community with integrity and will ensure that the intelligence enterprise operates lawfully, ethically, and morally. As the DNI, one of your most important tools will be the legal authorities provided under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, scheduled to sunset later this year. They enable the intelligence community to protect our troops, anticipate terrorist threats, and to mitigate cyber attacks, all while safeguarding the privacy and the civil liberties of the American people. Simply put, it's essential that Congress authorize these authorities to help keep the country safe while protecting our constitutional rights. I look forward to working with you and all of my colleagues to reauthorize FISA as soon as possible. Dan, I've known you for many years and believe your years of service to our Nation and unique experience make you a natural fit to lead our intelligence community. As mentioned to Director Pompeo during his nomination, I can assure you that this committee will continue to faithfully follow its charter, conduct vigorous and real-time oversight over the intelligence community, its operations, and its activities. We'll ask difficult and probing questions of you and your staff and we will expect honest, complete, and timely responses. I look forward to supporting your nomination and ensuring its consideration without delay. I want to thank you again for being here and for your years of service to the country. I look forward to your testimony, and I will now recognize the Vice Chairman for any comments he might make. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK R. WARNER, VICE CHAIRMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also want to welcome you, Dan, and congratulations on your nomination to serve as the fifth Director of the National Intelligence. We have known each other for many years and I believe the President has made an excellent choice in asking you to serve as DNI. Let me also echo the Chairman's comments in acknowledging your wife Marsha. I remember our wonderful trips we've had together. I would point out that the only thing that I might potentially hold against you is that your so-called sherpa that you brought along, Senator Chambliss, raises some questions of judgment in my mind, but I won't hold them against you throughout the whole hearing today. Senator Coats is well-known to the Senate Intelligence Committee. He served as a senior member of this committee for many years and has been an advocate for assertive oversight of the intelligence community throughout his tenure. Dan firmly believes in the value of intelligence and the importance of its timely, relevant, and absolutely free of political influence. As the Nation's chief intelligence officer, your job will be to find and follow the truth regardless of where it leads. It all comes down to the obligation that we've all talked about on this committee when we served together: tell truth to power, to the President, to the policy and military leaders, to the Executive Branch, to members of Congress. Maintaining your integrity and independence even in the face of political pressure is an absolute requirement of this position. Dan, the job for which you've been nominated has many rewards and possibly even more challenges. You will be expected to lead an enterprise, as we've talked about privately, of 17 diverse intelligence agencies. In some areas you will have clear authority to direct actions. But, as we know, in most areas the ODNI has to also convince rather than simply having direct authority. You'll be expected to serve as the President's top intelligence officer, to coordinate and integrate intelligence community activities, to lead the work to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the intelligence enterprise and ensure the integrity of that analytic product. While these are just a few of the many issues you will face, I know you're up to the challenge. But I need to make clear, even in my opening statement, that one of the first challenges I will ask you to take on, head on, is to support our efforts to understand Russia's interference in the 2016 Presidential election. As you know, this committee is conducting an investigation into that interference. We're also looking into whether any individuals associated with U.S. political campaigns inappropriately engaged with officials of the Russian government. And we will seek to determine what the intentions of those interactions were. We take this matter very, very seriously. The Chairman and I, as well as members of the committee on both sides of the aisle, have made commitments that the outcome of this investigation will not be prejudged and that the committee will follow wherever the information leads. We need to get it right. It's my intention that this investigation will remain bipartisan and seek to be as transparent as possible and remain free of any political consideration or interference, including, including interference from the White House. I will not accept any process that is undermined by such political interference. This inquiry will be thorough and it will be exhaustive, because at end of the day what we owe most is answers to the American public. You know how important this type of inquiry is. It's not about being a Democrat or Republican. Nor is it about relitigating the 2016 election. This is truly about upholding the core values and sanctity of the democracy that all Americans hold dear. Our plan is to review both the raw and finished intelligence and understand how the intelligence community made its conclusions on Russian interference. And I will ask you today again to commit to all members of this committee that you will fully cooperate with this review and that you will direct all the intelligence community agencies to provide all the information that we require, including the raw information, to make sure we get it right. On other topics, you and I had a very good conversation in my office a few weeks ago, where again we talked about the fact that we didn't think you'd be back in so quickly. I very much appreciated that conversation. And you assured me there that you will not support the return of waterboarding or other so- called `ènhanced interrogation practices,'' nor will you support reestablishing secret detention sites operated by the IC. You also assured me that you will always present to the President, his Cabinet and advisers and Congress the unvarnished facts as represented by the best judgment of the intelligence community, whether that analysis is in agreement or disagreement with the views of the President or, for that matter, anyone else. Again, I will ask you today to reaffirm those commitments that you made to me and make them publicly to the American public. Finally, if confirmed--and I look forward to supporting you--you will have the unique challenge of working for a President who has said comments that I believe at times have denigrated some of the work of the intelligence community. So you will have a very incredibly important role to make sure that the brave men and women who serve us, often in anonymity, that you will have their back, and that you will make sure that the morale of these brave men and women is increased and is respected. Senator Coats, again I want to thank you for being with us today. I want to thank you for your willingness to serve. And I look forward to working with the Chairman as we go through this hearing. Thank you, very much. Chairman Burr. Thank you, Vice Chairman. I'd like to now recognize our former colleague, former Vice Chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, and my good friend, Saxby Chambliss, who will be introducing Senator Coats. Saxby. STATEMENT OF HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA Senator Chambliss. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, members of the Committee. Chairman Burr. Cut on that microphone, would you? I know it's been a long time since you've been here. Senator Chambliss. You know, when I was in the Senate somebody did all this for me. I've had to adjust to a lot of things like that. [Laughter.] It's really good to be back in front of so many friends on this committee and, as much as I miss each of you individually, I have to tell you I am frankly happy to be on this side of the dais today. I'm here today to introduce to you a friend of all of us, Senator Dan Coats, who has been nominated by President Trump to be the fifth Director of National Intelligence. S. 2645 was introduced by Senators Feinstein, Rockefeller, and Bob Graham on the 19th of June, 2002. Then, after two and a half years of discussion and debate, the Intel Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 was passed overwhelmingly by both the House and the Senate and signed into law by President Bush. That Act created the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and placed all of the--it placed the DNI at the head of the 16 member intelligence agencies. The DNI was charged with directing and overseeing the national intelligence program and to serve as an adviser to the President and the executive offices of the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council about intelligence matters related to the national security of the United States. Today I understand that ODNI has somewhere around 2,000 employees who support the DNI's oversight responsibility for the entire National Intelligence Program of some $53 billion. Some have recently questioned the structure and effectiveness of ODNI, and perhaps after 12 years of the creation of a new agency, particularly one as sensitive as this, perhaps a review is in order. But there is one thing that cannot be overlooked, and that is that during these 12 years, with strong leadership from the DNI, from a commitment to security by dedicated employees at ODNI, and by very good oversight of this committee and the HPSCI, ODNI has led an IC that has produced intelligence to its customers that has prevented another large-scale attack against America on U.S. soil. We all know that the world is a more dangerous place than ever today. Bad guys are greater in number and more sophisticated in their operations than ever before. Thus, the strong leadership from the DNI is more important today than ever. No one is better suited to give that leadership than is our friend and former colleague, Dan Coats. As Ambassador to Germany, he was a customer of the IC. As a long-time member of this committee, Dan participated in conducting extensive oversight of the IC. Now he will be providing the intelligence that is to be subjected to that oversight. His experience prepares him well for both these new roles. I have traveled the world with Dan Coats many times, visiting our counterparts, our allies, as well as world leaders, and, while Dan is for the most part, as we all know, very friendly and easy-going, I have had the opportunity to observe Dan being very firm and direct in addressing sensitive and difficult issues with all of those individuals that we have visited and doing so in a very professional manner. Dan has been in public service since 1976 when he was district director for then-Congressman Dan Quayle. He then served in the House of Representatives, the United States Senate, Ambassador to Germany, and then again in the U.S. Senate. Now, after that remarkable 40-year career, Dan is willing to continue to serve his country as the DNI. Lastly, let me say that a lot of Dan's strength comes from the constant support he has received from his lovely wife, Marsha, to whom he's been married for now over 50 years. I will leave it to Dan to introduce her, but suffice it to say she's been a great teammate. Using a little sports nomenclature there, since I still have my Top Secret clearance I get some pretty good intelligence from time to time, and one piece of intelligence I picked up on about Dan is that he's a huge Chicago Cubs fan. Needless to say, he felt pretty good last fall. But one other thing I found out about him is that the day after he and Marsha were married he took her to a Cubs game. And his marriage still survived that. [Laughter.] It is my pleasure to introduce to you Senator Dan Coats, and I urge all of you to vote to send Dan's nomination to the floor of the Senate quickly and to very quickly confirm him as the new Director of National Intelligence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. Saxby, thank you. Dan, if you would stand, please. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to give the committee the truth, the full truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. Senator Coats. I do, so help me. Chairman Burr. Please be seated. STATEMENT OF HON. DAN COATS, FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA, NOMINATED TO BE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE Chairman Burr. Dan, before we move to your statement, I'd like to ask you to answer five questions that are standard for the committee. We pose them to each nominee who appears before us. They just require simple yes or a no answer for the record. Do you agree to appear before the committee here and in other venues when invited? Senator Coats. Yes. Chairman Burr. If confirmed, do you agree to send officials from your office to appear before the committee and designated staff when invited? Senator Coats. Yes. Chairman Burr. Do you agree to provide documents or any other materials requested by the committee in order for us to carry out our oversight and legislative responsibilities? Senator Coats. Yes. Chairman Burr. Will you both ensure that your office and your staff provides such materials to the committee when requested? Senator Coats. Yes. Chairman Burr. Do you agree to inform and fully brief to the fullest extent possible all members of the committee of intelligence activities and covert action, rather than only the Chair and Vice Chairman where appropriate? Senator Coats. Yes, where appropriate. Yes, where appropriate. Chairman Burr. I want to thank you very much. We'll now proceed to your opening statement. You're recognized. Senator Coats. Thank you. I have remarks thanking Saxby. He needs to leave and I want to jump ahead just a little bit of what I am going to say in my written remarks to you, just to thank him, a great friend, someone I had the pleasure of serving under on this committee. He has left his mark in many, many ways, including friendship among his wife and Saxby between Marsha and me. I just want to thank him for being willing to come here today and to make these remarks on my behalf. Chairman Burr, Vice Chairman Warner, members of the committee: I'm honored to appear before you as nominee for the position of Director of National Intelligence. It was a great privilege of mine to have served on the Senate Select Committee, this committee, on Intelligence, and to see up close the great work done by all the members of the staff and their supporters. I'll admit, however, that the view is a little bit different down here from up there. In fact, I recall many days sitting up there, looking to who was ever down here, and saying, I'm glad that's not me. Well, here I am. I'd like to begin by thanking President Trump for nominating me for the position of Director of National Intelligence. I'm humbled by his confidence in me and will work tirelessly to lead the world's, what I believe and I think most believe, the finest intelligence enterprise in the world. I would like to also thank Vice President Pence, my Indiana colleague and someone that I'm honored to call my friend, for his support. I deeply appreciate his faith in me. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the previous DNI, Jim Clapper, and his Principal Deputy, Stephanie O'Sullivan. Their oversight of the intelligence community of the past years has been commendable and their guidance in helping me prepare for this position has been most helpful. They left in place an experienced and a great team which have been instrumental in providing a smooth transition for the ODNI and for the IC. Also, I want to recognize my fellow Hoosiers, who elected me several times to the House of Representatives and to the United States Senate over the past years. I've always done my best to represent them and I'm honored by the confidence that they have put in me time and time again. While I will always be a Hoosier at heart, if confirmed as the next Director of National Intelligence I will represent the dedicated men and women of the Office of Director of National Intelligence and the broader intelligence community to the best of my ability. Finally, saving the best for last, I would like to thank my wife Marsha, my children Laura, Lisa, and Andrew, who is here today. Together my three children have produced, according to Marsha's and my observation, ten almost perfect grandchildren. My career in public service is a direct reflection of my family's enduring support and love and without their encouragement I would not be sitting here today. It's been a long road of public service that's brought me here before you. After 34 years of service in the House, the Senate and as U.S. Ambassador to Germany, I was ready to make a transition and planned to move on to a new chapter of my life- long journey, back home again to Indiana. But, as I have learned over those 34 years, life doesn't always work out the way you think it's going to work out. When called upon to consider this position, I first consulted my most important adviser, my wife Marsha, as I examined the responsibilities of such a significant office. As a former teacher and family therapist, Marcia understands me probably better than anybody and the importance of public service. She is the rock that provides stability and wise counsel, shoulder to shoulder with me in every aspect of my life. And while I'm no longer retiring from public service, what I am retiring as I sit here today is my policy hat, a hat I wore proudly for years as I represented the views of my constituents, offered policy proposals, made judgments and cast votes in the committee and on the floor. That will be replaced. It's retired. But if confirmed I put on a new hat, the DNI hat. And just as this government transitions to a new leadership, I too hope to transition to the role of principal intelligence adviser to the President and all the duties that come with that. In this new role it will be my responsibility to present the President, senior policymakers throughout the Administration, and you the Congress with the best and most objective, nonpolitical and timely intelligence as you consider policies in the future for our great Nation. The President and I have personally discussed my potential role as his principal intelligence adviser and we both recognize that this position is frequently the bearer of unpleasant news. But if confirmed, my responsibility would be to provide him with the most accurate and objective and apolitical intelligence possible. In my various conversations with many of you prior to this hearing I was asked about how I see the larger role of the DNI. Those who know me--and Saxby referenced this, that I'm an avid sports fan and never more avid than this past year as I celebrated the seemingly impossible accomplishment of the Chicago Cubs after 108 years of effort, winning the World Series. So allow me to compare how I see my role as DNI using, well, not a baseball analogy, but a football analogy. On a football team the players are guided by a variety of coaches. You see them standing along the sidelines and wonder how many there are. At one time I counted and I thought there were 17 and I thought that meant something here relative to the number of agencies we look after. There's a coach for offense, a coach for defense, special teams, one for the offensive line, one for the defensive line, one for the quarterback and on and on it goes. But every team has a head coach, that leader who walks the sidelines and, while not dictating to each coach, assistant coach, how to do their specific job, pulls each of these specialists together to form a seamless and focused team. I see the role of Director of National Intelligence as analogous to the head coach role for the intelligence community, integrating the IC and leveraging all the expertise in our community. We have immense talent resident in many of the agencies across the IC. Yet each one contributes unique capabilities or expertise that is necessary for a team to be as a whole successful: the unique access of our human intelligence sources and the detailed analysis from the Central Intelligence Agency; the important input from the Defense Intelligence Agency; the signals intelligence expertise of the National Security Agency, which I believe is second to none; the geospatial mastery demonstrated by the National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency; the acquisition proficiency of our satellite specialists at the National Reconnaissance Office; the force multiplier the intelligence elements of the armed services bring to this team effort; the domestic counterterrorism and counter-intelligence work done by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and the specialized skills of the IC elements resident within the Departments of State, Treasury, Justice, Homeland Security, and Energy. Like a head coach, I see it as my job to pull all of these team members together under the same game, to produce the best coordinated and the best integrated intelligence we can find, to make the whole greater than the sum of the parts. And given the complicated threat environment that we face today in this country and around the world, now more than ever the IC must work as a team. The threats that we face today are more challenging, dynamic, and geographically diffuse than ever before. Allow me to address in no particular order what I see as some of the most challenging issues we currently face. And I could spend a lot of time on this, so I will abbreviate and talk about just a few. Clearly the rising cyber threat must be highlighted. Cyberspace is both a resource and a liability, an increasingly connected world that creates opportunities, but also many vulnerabilities. Not unrelated, I would also highlight the threat of radical Islamic terrorism, which continues to be a significant threat to the United States and its allies abroad. They're spreading their message of fear and hate through cyberspace and mobilizing to venues beyond their self-described caliphate. China's continued regional activism, including its disputed territorial claims in the East and South China Seas is troubling and will be a long-term challenge for the United States. Russia's assertiveness in global affairs is something I look upon with grave concern, which we need to address with eyes wide open and a healthy degree of skepticism. And North Korea's nuclear ambitions and, quite frankly, provocations are something the intelligence community needs to be laser-focused on. The list continues with a diverse set of challenges, including those in Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, and other hot spots around the world. In order to address these threats, I will bring my years of experience on how to execute on a plan and bring together teams of people toward a common goal. As the Ambassador to Germany from 2001 to 2005, I oversaw the activity of more than a dozen Federal agencies at the American Embassy. I trust that my experiences coordinating and integrating that many different departments and agencies, overseeing their activities, leveraging their strengths and bringing them together under a single strategy will serve me well as DNI. As a member of Congress in both the House and Senate, I have always had a keen interest, as hopefully you know, in ensuring that we are responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. In evaluating Federal programs, I always made it a point to ask questions about what works, what doesn't and why. I also believed it was important to assess how we establish priorities. We must ask ourselves, in a time of tightened budgets, what programs are truly essential and which may no longer be necessary or only partly necessary or of lower priority? How does each program support our overall goal or strategy and is it duplicative of another effort? I will be looking to ask the IC these and many more questions if confirmed as DNI. In the vein of efficiency, there has been much discussion about the role of the DNI and the Office of the DNI. Let me share with you what I have learned in preparation for this opportunity. Over the last 12 years since its inception, the ODNI has been tasked with a variety of responsibilities, in statute, many in statute, in Executive Orders, and in Presidential memoranda, along with recommendations coming from the 9/11 Commission and the Silberman-Robb Commission on WMD. The people supporting these directives are hard-working folks from all across the IC. Of note, a significant portion of the ODNI's workforce is on rotation from other IC agencies. As you know also, NCTC, an organization of 750 people, created by the law enacted in 2005, is counted in that number that we have, which is less than 2,000 and, by the way, less than a third of the number of band members for the armed services. So that may put it in some perspective. ODNI was established to counter the pre-9/11 stove-piping by individual intelligence agencies and ensure collaboration and integration across the intelligence elements. The people who are supporting these directives are hard-working folks from all across the IC. ODNI brings together talent from across the community to integrate intelligence and does its best to connect the dots-- not just specific dots from the specific agencies and specialties. In keeping with my earlier football analogy, you can't play a complete game with just a star quarterback and a wide receiver. Maybe if you're the New England Patriots you can pull that off once in a while, but I don't think that happens very often. But even the Pats need a strong offensive line, a stout defense, agile special teams and a talented place kicker, along with many other players, to be the best in the business. Not every player in a football team is going to be the MVP, but they are a team nonetheless and everyone on the field plays a critical role. And when we the IC succeed, we succeed as a team. If we come up short, we fail as a team and we use that experience to address it so that doesn't happen again. As I looked at the many requirements of the office reflected in various laws, orders and recommendations, I have been impressed by the office's responsiveness to these many tasks within the reasonable resources that they have. Recent commentary on the size of the ODNI doesn't mesh with what I've seen firsthand and I believe it does a disservice to this committee and your efforts to keep the size of ODNI in check, which is your obligation and my obligation. That said, as I discussed earlier, I believe every government agency must constantly review its operations, and I'll be taking a look at not only the ODNI, but the entire IC, and try to learn how we can do things more efficiently and effectively. We don't have a choice. Much has been made publicly about the role of our intelligence enterprise and how it will fare in the future, and I'm encouraged by what I see. With the leadership team in place at the IC agencies, I know that this community will continue as the world-class intelligence enterprise it is today. Before going to questions, let me just share with you the early goals that, if confirmed, I will share with the IC. I intend to push the IC to be the best it can and not accept the status quo when it comes to challenges facing our Nation. I intend to ask the IC to be innovative in its approach to hard problems and the solutions to solve them. I intend to be a champion for the hard-working men and women of the IC, be there for them the way they are here for all of us. Every day the men and women of the IC are working tirelessly on the front lines, often in the shadows, oftentimes in very dangerous situations, with a common goal of keeping America safe and secure. I also intend to work with all of you, as a former member of the committee, to assure you that the IC has the support it needs to tackle whatever the opposing teams bring our way and to ensure that the Congress and this committee have access to the information you need to conduct your oversight responsibilities. I am honored by the opportunity to be here today and I thank you for your consideration of my nomination. And with that, I look forward to answering your questions. [The prepared statement of Senator Coats follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Burr. Dan, thank you very much. Let me say for members, I'll recognize members in order of seniority for a five-minute round. For those that need it, we will have a follow-up round. Just for members' timing, we'll go from the open hearing immediately when complete to a closed hearing for whatever period that might take, and that will be in our normal hearing room. With that, let me recognize myself for five minutes. Dan, you and Marsha had a good gig, you know, retirement. She was excited. You were actually really excited--34 years. Now you've got--now you've agreed to do a job that many have called thankless. Why? Senator Coats. I've been asked that question many times at each step of the journey, and the response has always come down to a sense of duty. When asked to serve your country, whether it was in uniform, which I did for two years, or whether it was in the Congress or as Ambassador and the run for the Senate again after quite a hiatus, and then to say yes to this job, I was reminded of the phrase that runs through my mind: I dreamt, I believed that life was a beauty, and I think that's what I was looking forward to. I awoke and found that life is a duty. So I believe, if asked by your leader of your country to serve your country again, the answer needed to be yes. Chairman Burr. I know you understand well from your experience on the committee how valuable raw intelligence can be to the oversight process. If asked by committee, will you provide the raw intelligence and sourcing behind intelligence community finished product and assessments? Senator Coats. I absolutely believe that is my responsibility and the responsibility of the IC, to provide what this committee needs to do its oversight properly. Chairman Burr. I noticed in your statement that you highlighted, and I quote, `àcquisition proficiency of our satellite specialists,'' unquote, at the National Reconnaissance Office. I'm sure you probably agree, however, that the requirements development process for our satellites is in need of significant reform. Will you work with the committee to streamline that process to ensure that we can more quickly get to the design, build and launch phase? Senator Coats. Absolutely. Agility is critical in this time of rapid technological change. We see, I believe now, 11 nations who have the capacity to launch instruments into space. I was shocked the other day to read that the nation of India on one rocket launch deposited more than 100 satellites in space. They may be small in size with different functions and so forth, but one rocket can send up I think it was 111 platforms. We cannot afford to be behind the curve in terms of development of both the offensive and defensive capacities that we put up into space. And so, streamlining that acquisition process is not something that, yeah, should be done; it's of utmost urgency that it has to be done. Chairman Burr. There's been much discussion about the role that the Central Intelligence Agency played in the detention and interrogation of terrorist suspects as part of the RDI program. Those detention facilities operated by the CIA have long been closed and President Obama officially ended the program seven years ago. I think the debate space on this subject has become confused and I'm certain that the law is now very clear. Do you agree that it would require a change in law for the CIA or any government agency to lawfully employ any interrogation techniques beyond those defined in the Army Field Manual? Senator Coats. I absolutely support that. That is the law. I might note for the committee, you may--I'll bring it up if you don't. When that vote on the NDAA came up, the McCain Amendment, I was one of a few who did not support that amendment. First of all, I absolutely will follow the law in every aspect regardless of what my personal thoughts might be. I only had one reservation that I couldn't reconcile in my mind. I didn't think no because I didn't think that's where we needed to go. I voted no because I thought perhaps we ought to at least have a discussion about what do you do in a situation when you have the necessary intelligence to know that something terrible is going to happen to the American people in a very short amount of time and you have the legitimate individual who can tell you where that radiological bomb or biological material is and you don't have time to go through the process that the Army Field Manual requires? I'm not saying that should--I'm not saying--I'm not trying--as I said, I took off my policy hat. I'm no longer engaged in that process. I follow the law that's there and I ensure that the IC follows the law, and the answer to your question is absolutely. But I do think it's at least worth discussion relative to the situation that might occur where we might have to, hopefully with some special authority, might have to go outside that. I don't have the prescription for that. I'm not going to advocate for that. I'm simply trying to define what was going through my mind when that amendment came up. I thought we needed a little more discussion on that. That was on the policy side. That hat's gone. Chairman Burr. You mentioned in your opening statement that you intend to ask the intelligence committee to be innovative in its approach to hard problems. I just want to say this, Dan: As you know, I've been pushing the community to innovate for many years, and I look forward to working with you and supporting this endeavor to change an IC community that looks forward with innovation as an opportunity, as have many on this committee. Turn to the Vice Chairman. Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me echo what the Chairman has said about satellites and our whole overhead capacity. I think you were part of many vigorous debates that we had to make changes in that field and make it much more future-oriented and recognize, as you pointed out, both other nations moving in this area and tremendous opportunities within the commercial space. So I appreciate your answer on that. I do want to, as I mentioned in my opening statement, though, get you back on the record on a couple of items that I think are terribly important. I want to start again with an issue of great importance to me and I believe this committee, and that is our current investigation into the Russian hacking attempts. Do you promise to fully and completely cooperate with the committee's investigation of the Russian election hacking, including by turning over all requested IC cables, intelligence products, and other materials to the committee as promptly as possible? Senator Coats. I think it's our responsibility to provide you access to all that you mentioned. Vice Chairman Warner. And do you plan to continue any investigations the IC is carrying out or may carry out regarding Russia's active measures, especially as they refer to interference in elections in our country and, for that matter, countries around the world? Senator Coats. I think this is something that needs to be investigated and addressed. I have not seen the classified information on that. As my colleagues may or may not know, the day you go sine die here and you're leaving the Senate you lose your classification. You have to start over at zero. It took much longer than we had anticipated. So I just received it last Thursday. I was back in Indiana last week helping to try to close things down there to return here. So I have not had the opportunity to be briefed on what the classified version of that investigation has come up with. So in answer to your question, yes, I think this is an issue. Russia has a long history of propaganda and trying to influence various nations' cultures and elections and so forth. It's happening in Europe now as we speak. But they seem to have stepped up their game and they are using cyber and they are using sophisticated methods now that they didn't have before. So I think it's a very key issue that we understand fully what has happened and how it's happened and have a full report on that. I certainly will make sure the IC produces the intelligence access that you need to do your job. Vice Chairman Warner. I appreciate your answer. Obviously, one of the core functions of the IC--and as ODNI you'll have to coordinate this, the analogy back to the coach-- of making sure that you speak truth to power. You've got a remarkable background, but you will be the first DNI who was not either career military, career intelligence, or a career professional diplomat, and again similar to Mike Pompeo, being more a political or a policy advocate. How will you ensure that the intelligence community will continue to provide unvarnished assessments to the President and his Administration regardless of any politics? Senator Coats. Well, that's our responsibility and that's my primary responsibility, to make sure that the intelligence community knows exactly what our standards are, what we can do and what we can't do. I want to make it very, very clear to all elements of the intelligence community that our job is to do our job, and our job is not to formulate policy, our job is not to influence intelligence in any way for political reasons; our job is to present the, as you said, truth to those who make policy decisions about where we go. And I will not tolerate--I will not tolerate anything that falls short of that standard. Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you. The Chairman raised the issue around the current law in terms of the U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogation. I would simply point out that every day in one form or another the military deals with some form or another of the so-called ticking time bomb scenario. And I believe General Mattis has appropriately pointed out that he would not stray from the Army Field Manual because he feels the so-called `ènhanced interrogation techniques'' just don't work. I would hope that you would echo again what you said in the last, that you would commit to following the law and not lead some effort to try to change that law. Senator Coats. I can absolutely say that I have no other obligation except to follow the law on that. I would say, I greatly respect the views of John McCain, who not only understands this but has been subject to it, and General Mattis and his years and years of experience. I respect both of those and I intend to be available to work with them and talk with them. But the goal is clear, the law is clear, and following what that law is is my primary responsibility and I will adhere to that. Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. Senator Risch. Senator Risch. Dan, I don't really have any questions for you. You sat right here for all the time that you did and I know what your decision-making is like, and you and I wrestled with some of these tough decisions we had to make and I know what your analysis is like and I have absolutely confidence. I think it was a great appointment by the President. Senator Coats. Thank you. Senator Risch. Thank you, and especially thank Marsha for agreeing that you could do this job. We really appreciate it, America appreciates it. Thank you for your willingness to do that. Senator Coats. Just a comment. I've been sitting here looking at that empty chair. Who died? [Laughter.] Senator Risch. That's Senator Rubio's chair now and---- Senator Coats. Oh, I'm sorry. Senator Risch [continuing]. I'm not going to comment. Senator Coats. I hope he's not watching on C-Span. He'll be showing up through the door. Senator Risch. I'm not going to comment on the trade that was made here. But again, thanks much. As you know, they are remodeling your office that's next to mine on the fourth floor. Man, it's, it's a mess. I wish you hadn't have left, to be honest with you. Senator Coats. Were you able to seize a new room on the other end there? Senator Risch. No, I wasn't. But that doesn't mean I didn't try. Senator Coats. Well, I could probably try to help you on that. [Laughter.] Senator Risch. Thank you. Senator Coats. Thank you. Chairman Burr. Senator Wyden. Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's good to see my former Finance Committee partner in the cause of bipartisan tax reform. I was a little baffled in all the references to football since Hoosiers are about my game, basketball. But we'll talk about that another time. In January of 2017, the intelligence community issued a written assessment that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. Given President Putin's--excuse me. Given Putin's preferences, how are you going to actually show our allies, with elections coming up, that the intelligence community will support them against Russian efforts to influence their elections? Senator Coats. Well, as I said earlier, Russia has a long history of doing this, although they've stepped up their game and they're using more sophisticated tactics. As I also said, I haven't seen the classified version of this, but I think it's publicly known and acknowledged and accepted that Russia definitely did try to influence the campaign. To what extent they were successful, I don't think we know. But following through on that in terms of informing our allies of what we have experienced and what they're probably going to experience gives them I think the ability to better understand what the Russian efforts are. I think the transparency of what has happened is necessary for the American people so that when they make their judgments about future, whether future elections or whatever, they understand that there are outside forces trying to influence them one way or another. I do think this is an issue that ought to be looked at carefully and there needs to be, frankly, a response. Vice President Pence at the Munich Security Conference--I was not there, but I read his remarks--said there needs to be consequences for what the Russians are trying to do. Senator Wyden. What I hope we'll see is that, because people are concerned that what happened to us will happen to them, that you will make intelligence-sharing with these countries a priority. Senator Coats. I think that's already being done, and needs to be done. Senator Wyden. I wanted to hear it from you. But we'll move on. You said that if you're confirmed, the reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act would be your top legislative priority. For years, I and members of Congress have been asking for an estimate of how many innocent, law-abiding Americans' communications are getting swept up in this collection. Will you commit to getting this number to this committee and the public before reauthorization? Senator Coats. Yes, I do. I'm going to do everything I can to work with Admiral Rogers in NSA to get you that number. I've been told it is an extremely complex process for a number of reasons. As I said, without a classification I don't know what all these reasons are. I need to learn what they are, but I also need to share with Admiral Rogers the need, I think, to get this committee not just those numbers, but all the information they need with which to make a judgment as to the reauthorization. The intelligence community believes that the reauthorization is extremely important; it's a program that has provided a significant amount of intelligence relative to what foreign agents or individuals are trying to do to harm Americans. So it has layers of oversight at all three levels of government. It has been examined by the PCLOB, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and supported by the FISA Court. But this is something that you will be going through during this next year and we want to make sure you have all the information you feel you need in order to make whatever adjustments that Congress decides to make. Senator Wyden. So you'll commit to making sure we have the number of innocent Americans being swept up before reauthorization. Will you commit to declassifying any secret legal interpretations related to FISA as well? Senator Coats. Well, that's something that I'll have to continue to work with you on. Obviously, I'm going to commit to do everything I can to try to get you that number. I need to find out why it has taken so long and what are the complications in getting that number. But I think it's important for the committee---- Senator Wyden. This is declassification as well as the number. Senator Coats. But on the declassification, as long as it doesn't--I mean, the declassification process is in place so that we can, if there are sensitive sources and methods that can be exposed, that have negative consequences to our intelligence agency, we obviously have to classify those. But those that we can declassify, for the needed purpose, I think we need to do. Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, if I could just take a few more seconds, as you did. My point is--and I appreciate what Senator Coats is trying to say here--A, we need that number. We have sought it for years and years. More and more Americans are getting swept up in these searches. We're trying to legitimately go after foreign targets that are a threat to us, but as telecommunications systems become globally integrated we're getting more and more law-abiding Americans swept up. So we need that. We need declassification. I look forward to working with you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. Senator Collins. Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome back, Senator Coats. We're delighted to see you. As the author, along with former Senator Joe Lieberman, of the 2004 law that created the Director of National Intelligence, I have a special interest in your nomination. I'm delighted that the President has chosen you for this important position and I believe that he could not have made a better choice. Senator Coats. Thank you. Senator Collins. I want to talk to you about the importance of the DNI serving, as the law provides, as the principal intelligence adviser to the President. I'm concerned about reports that the President is changing the composition of the so-called Principals Committee on the National Security Council by adding his chief strategist and downgrading, or so it appears, the role of the Director of National Intelligence. How will you ensure that you can fulfill the statutory mandate to serve as the President's top intelligence adviser at National Security Council meetings if this proposed reorganization goes forward? Senator Coats. That's a question that I have been addressing directly with the President and his staff. I was informed that the drafting of that executive order was not intended to not have the Director of National Intelligence as part of the Principals Committee. It was drafted before--by President Bush's administration, before the DNI was even stood up. And so they took language from that, never intending not to have the DNI be a part of the Principals Committee. I have been reassured time and time and time again from the President to his advisers that I'm welcome and needed and expected to be a part of the Principals Committee. It's essential to the process of being in a position to know what is moving on up to the National Security Council relative to the team. I have great confidence in General McMaster in terms of his putting together a team that he knows will be the most effective NSC team that he can. And I think relative to who is added or not added to that team will be under his jurisdiction and that, as I said, I have very great confidence that he is going to put that team in place that he thinks can best serve the President. Senator Collins. Thank you. That's very reassuring, since I can't imagine having the Deputy DNI on the Deputies Committee and then not having the DNI on the Principals Committee, which meets to resolve issues that are of the highest level that the deputies could not resolve. And surely the President should want to have his principal adviser on intelligence matters present at those very important meetings. Senator Coats. And I was ensured that that was the intent and the other was just a mischaracterization of the Executive Order. Senator Collins. Thank you. A second issue that I want it raise with you is that President Trump has asked an individual who runs a private equity firm to lead a broad review of the U.S. intelligence agencies. As far as I can tell, this individual does not have national security experience, nor does he appear to have experience in intelligence. As you're well aware, the President can already receive independent advice from the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, which can provide outside advice regarding a full range of intelligence activities. So to have this additional review, particularly from an individual who does not appear to have the requisite background, appears to be a textbook definition of waste and duplication. In addition, in your statement you talked very eloquently about the responsibility the DNI has to bring the intelligence agencies together to review, to make sure they are working effectively and efficiently. My concern is that an outside review by an individual without experience can result in recommendations that are essentially armchair quarterbacking of the leadership of the intelligence community. Do you view it as your job to review the operations of the intelligence community? Senator Coats. I do, and I've made that clear to the President and to his advisers, that that is where I stand. Clearly, as I said in my opening statement, every agency needs to consciously review itself, particularly at a time when budget resources are restrained--well, at any time, whether they are or not. We want an efficient and effective government, streamlined to efficiency. But in terms of looking at that and assigning someone to that position, if it involves the intelligence community, I think that it needs to be under my authority. And I've made that very, very clear. And I believe that's what the case will be. Now, I know Mr. Feinberg personally. I think he's a patriot. He wants to serve his country and he brings many talents to that. But I do not think that translates into reporting to the White House and not being under the control of the Director--excuse me--the national security office. Sorry, the DNI. I ought to have that down pretty well, don't you think, the DNI? So I want to just assure you that that's an issue that I have been engaged in and I have full confidence that that's the way it will turn out. Senator Collins. Thank you very much and I wish you all the best. Senator Coats. Thank you. Chairman Burr. Senator Heinrich. Senator Heinrich. Welcome back, Dan. Chairman Burr. Thank you. Senator Heinrich. I want to go back to a couple of--some of the ground that Senator Collins covered. I think most of us agree with your analogy. We want you to be the head coach. We're a little concerned that sometimes the owner of the team might rather hear from the offensive coordinator right now. So some of these things with regard to the executive order, with regard to Mr. Feinberg of Cerberus, the appointment of the Director of the CIA to the committee, they open a lot of questions for how you're going to maintain the DNI's leadership role and the structure that has served the intelligence community so well, after a period when we really realized stovepipes do not help American national security. So I want to make sure I understand what you said to Senator Collins. Do I understand that the Executive Order that came out, that seemed to remove the DNI from the Principals Committee, was a recycled Bush administration Executive Order that just didn't reflect current law and historical precedent from 2002? Senator Coats. That's my understanding. I wasn't there, of course, at the time, in the writing of that. I had no participation in that. That is my understanding. I cannot fully say that that's what exactly happened, but what has been told to me is that the intent was never to not have the DNI as part of the Principals Committee, and they reassured me very quickly that, look--they also were thinking there may be occasion when the committee is meeting dealing with something that doesn't involve intelligence, perhaps a flood or something like that. Senator Heinrich. I don't think we need to be worried about that sort of a situation. I think we do want to be reassured-- one, I'm reassured with regard to your position. I think that's very important. I am not reassured as to the process that these Executive Orders have been going through, given what I see as a pretty enormous omission. Let me move on to another issue with regard to encryption, and we've had this conversation a lot when you were here on the committee. It's something you're going to have to deal with, a very evolving situation moving forward. NSA Director Admiral Rogers called encryption ``foundational to the future.'' I think Secretary Carter called encryption `àbsolutely essential'' with regard to the Department of Defense, and he said, quote, `Ì'm not a believer in back doors or a single technical approach to what is a complex and complicated problem. I'm just not. I don't think that's realistic. I don't think that's technically accurate.'' End quote. Other former IC leaders--Michael Hayden, Mike McConnell, Michael Chertoff, Mike Morrell--a lot of Michaels--have all made public statements of strong support for strong encryption and unequivocal opposition to so-called back doors because of the risks inherent to them. Do you believe that strong encryption is an essential tool for the American public and private sectors to be able to protect personal, business, financial data from hackers, criminals, and malicious governments? Senator Coats. Yes, I do, and I think it's important, obviously, for the government, all government entities. We're all aware of the attempts to break into systems that deal with our defense, deal with our financial resources, deal with any number of things. So encryption has a very positive effect and is needed. We also have, though, the responsibility of trying to understand what those who are not using the Internet for the right purposes--we used to be separated by two wide oceans and felt we were pretty safe and we could always be ready for something that was coming our way. Now, in fractions of a second someone can hit a key and cause incredible damage to the United States in many, many ways, all across the spectrum. So there are those occasions, I think, when we need to at least think about, when we have legal authority to address a situation where we need to get information, cooperation from the public sector would be helpful. I think that conversation has been going on, needs to continue going on. You know, the CEOs of companies that are making devices and guaranteeing their buyers encryption, they worry about their families, they worry about their communities, they worry about attacks on the United States. So once again, I'm not in a policy position to decide how this happens, but I do think that it needs to be an ongoing discussion among policymakers in terms of what legal authorities. In the end, we follow the law, whatever it is, regardless of our personal opinions. Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman. Chairman Burr. Senator Blunt. Senator Blunt. Well, it's great to have you back and great to have been on this committee with you and know that you have an important and in many ways unique sense of these issues. But also, we've watched as a committee and as a Congress the DNI operation grow beyond what at least I initially thought it would be. And I'm wondering, as you've had a chance to think about this, why you think that has happened and how much of it is a result of the Congress taxing the DNI with specific assignments rather than letting the DNI decide which agency should have that assignment? Give me a sense of how you think that's developed and how your review of the other agencies would also involve the review of what the Director of National Intelligence and that entire operation under your daily management would look like? Senator Coats. Well, I've been asking the same question of the IC in regards to this. I have found that statutory requirements, Executive Orders, directives, have added functions to the DNI that are mandated by the Congress or by the Executive Branch. Also, I think people don't understand that NCTC is a part of the DNI. They have about 750 employees at the NCTC. I don't hear anybody calling for not having an NCTC, but by statute under IRTPA it was made part of the DNI. We have rotations that come. I think about 40 percent of the people there are rotated through. It's much like what the military has tried to do with their joint exercises and so forth. They want Navy to serve with the Army at a certain point and the Air Force at a certain point so that they are familiar with the whole and can perform better service, they're not stovepiped. And it's somewhat similar to what the whole joint efforts under Goldwater-Nichols was trying to accomplish. So it's a little more complicated than just more than just the number, oh, there's 1,750 people out there, why do we need that many? It's those two factors that played a major role in that. Having said that, it doesn't mean that we can't take a hard look at that: How can we streamline? How can we be more effective? But simply taking a number of people here and putting them over there really doesn't change the dynamic if the reason that they're here is for integration processes, coordinating processes, and so forth. So to finish my remarks, simply, if you're going to integrate information that is coming from 16 other different agencies, you have to have members there from some of those functions that know what's coming from their function so that they can be part of the integration solution. Senator Blunt. And do you think the Congress has rightly or wrongly created all those specific assignments for the DNI, as opposed to either letting the DNI determine who had the assignment or making an assignment to one of the specific agencies and knowing that the DNI would be--have oversight? Senator Coats. That's probably a good question to ask Senator Collins. I know her initial intent, along with Senator Lieberman and others that put this together, had to work through the process of becoming law. I read an interesting book about what that two and half years was like in order to achieve that. Many times we have a vision here and we have our staff write it up into law and from the starting point to the ending point we don't sometimes recognize it when it comes back with all the decisions that have been made make adjustments so certain entities have this authority and that authority. So there is some fog in the air about the exact authorities of the DNI and the responsibilities that are left to other agencies. Clearly, an overseer, someone who has some defined authorities, but not necessarily the authority to simply go into every agency and deal with their operations. Senator Blunt. I would just conclude by saying on this topic, I think nobody is in a better position to work with the relevant committees of Congress to try to go back now and take a look at that law, what it was intended to do, whether it really has achieved what it was intended to do, and the advice you might have as you have a chance to look at this from both perspectives of what the next DNI might be able to deal with because of reforms and efficiencies that you built in while have you this job. And I look forward to you being part of this committee's activities for the next several years. Senator Coats. Thank you. Well, it's 12 years on and it's probably time to take a look at it and say, as I said, what works, what doesn't and why, and what changes can we make to make it be better. Senator Blunt. Exactly, and I'd like for that to be one of the things that you determine is going to be one of your major goals. Senator Coats. That is one of my major goals. Chairman Burr. Senator King. Senator King. Thank you. Senator Coats, I would first take issue with your analogy. I can assure you that the assistant coaches of the New England Patriots would be astonished to think that Bill Belicheck is as passive as you would portray him. You've got to be more aggressive. This isn't a passive role, Senator. Let me move on to my only concern about your nomination. You're one of the most likable, affable, easy-going people I've ever met. I liked traveling with you and working with you on this committee. I'm not sure likability and affability are the qualities I want in this position. I want somebody who is crusty and mean and tough, because you're riding herd on 17 agencies that will always want to be going in different directions and you're going to be reporting to a President who may or may not want to hear what you have to say. Can you assure me that, not only are you changing hats when you go into this job, but you're going to be hard in terms of your execution of this I think the second most important job in the United States Government right now? Senator Coats. Well, achieving the level of Bill Belicheck may be tough. I haven't seen any other NFL coaches that achieve the level of Bill Belicheck. Senator King. In attitude and success. Senator Coats. But I hear exactly what you're saying, and I think the office demands it and I think the times demand it. Clearly, we are in a situation--we're not in a passive situation from a world threats standpoint. It has reached the level that we can't afford not to go at this with everything that we have. Senator King. To put a point on this, the three most serious foreign policy mistakes in my lifetime are the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, and the invasion of Iraq. All of those were based upon configuring intelligence to meet the desires of the policymakers. That's the common thread that runs through. The pressure on you to try to meet the demands of the policymakers--and it just happened on Saturday when allegedly the Trump Administration, the White House, put pressure on the Department of Homeland Security Intelligence and Analysis to come up with a justification for the travel ban. Rather than asking, what's the story on people from these countries, they gave them the answer and said, give us the evidence. Have you heard about this incident? It just was reported this past weekend. Senator Coats. I read that in public media, yes. Senator King. Does that concern you? Senator Coats. As I said in the beginning and as I will say frequently to both the President and to the Executive Branch, you need to fully understand my role. My role is to provide you with the intelligence to formulate policy, not formulate policy, not be a spokesman for any political decisions that are made. So yes, I have made this clear. I will continue to make this clear. I cannot go outside the bounds of my authorities, and I believe those authorities require me to do nothing less than what I just said. Senator King. A quick yes or no question: Do you need this job? Senator Coats. No, I don't need this job. One of the benefits of being in your generation together, I think, as I look at the panel here---- Senator King. I don't know what you're talking about. [Laughter.] That's the right answer. Senator Coats. You and I go back all the way to the Bay of Pigs and all the way to Vietnam. And if we didn't learn anything from these incidents, then shame on us. Senator King. That's right, and I want you to, because there is going to be a moment when you're going to have to say: I don't need this job, because I'm being asked to do something that I shouldn't do. I'm not predicting that that will happen, but very well that could happen. It's happened, and this isn't about this President or any other President. It's happened, as we've both pointed out, over the past 40 years. A couple of follow-up questions on the National Security Council. I don't know where the language came from, but the language says that where instances--you're invited where instances pertaining to the DNI's responsibility and expertise are to be discussed. I can't imagine a situation where that wouldn't be the case. I'm worried that you said, well, if it's a problem we'll fix it. It should be fixed now. You shouldn't be welcome at these meetings; you should be part of these meetings. I would urge you to talk to the White House about this Executive Order that was issued barely a week after the President was in office, about correcting that fault. The second fault in that was to put Steve Bannon, the President's political adviser, onto the National Security Council. I understand that President Bush forbade Karl Rove from even going to National Security Council meetings, let alone being on it. And I hope you will go back and take that message. Admiral Mullen says this is politicizing intelligence or national security from the beginning, and I think that's a very bad practice. Senator Coats. Thank you, Senator. I'll take that message back to the President. Senator King. Thank you. Chairman Burr. Senator Rubio. Senator Rubio. Thank you. It's great to see you, Dan. Just to Senator King's concern, I sat next to you here for a couple of years and I found you to actually be quite an unpleasant human being on many occasions. [Laughter.] Senator Rubio. Of course, everyone who knows you knows that that's not true. But we're fortunate and grateful at your willingness to continue to serve our country. There are three topics I wanted to touch. The first is kind of this unusual situation that we now have regarding counterintelligence in particular, and it's the sort of synergy that combines the strategic placement of illegally accessed information, the use of media organisms under the control of foreign governments, RT and Sputnik and the like. There's always been an element of propaganda involved in politics, but the sort of synergy between propaganda, counterintelligence, for purposes of interfering, influencing, and manipulating, directing elections, policymaking in foreign countries, I think has reached a level in many places in Europe and I believe in the United States that's unique. I just wanted to--and you may have touched on this earlier, but this is a challenge that is perhaps a bit different from what we have been dealing with in the intelligence community over the last decade, certainly since post-9/11. That is, not just that foreign governments have intelligence agencies that target us, but that in fact they strategically use information potentially to have an influence over our policymakers, our policymaking, and potentially even our elections. So that new dynamic; how do you view the multiple different agencies kind of synergizing all of that to confront this new element that I still think we're grappling with fully understanding? Senator Coats. I did mention earlier that the advances in technology have upped the games of those who want to use these techniques, and the connection of the world and the links through the worldwide Internet have been marvelous advances for mankind, but have extreme vulnerabilities also and can be taken advantage of. I think we need to educate our public to the fact that these types of things are happening, so that in their factoring in terms of their decisions relative to government and government's functions and elections and so forth they're well aware of the fact that they can't just simply believe everything they hear and everything they read, that there are these efforts out there to undermine who we are as a country, undermine some of our values, cause us to lose confidence in our government's ability to protect our privacy, et cetera. So I do think that requires much more agility, much better means of not only intercepting these, but putting not only the defenses in place, but offenses, a response, so that those that are doing this know there's a consequence to what they're doing. Senator Rubio. I would just add that, given the fact that this kind of touches upon the intelligence community so heavily, there's always this tension between allowing the American public and, for that matter, our allies to understand what's happening and yet allowing the intelligence community to continue to work in ways that do not divulge more than is necessary. That tension is always there and I think it's an important part of the element that we should take into account moving forward. I really do think in many ways one of the greatest defenses towards any efforts to interfere with our political process from outside the country would be to allow the American people to be aware as much as possible of what those efforts entail, so that they understand the source and the motivation behind things that they may be reading, seeing, et cetera, throughout the process. So I'm glad to hear you mention that. I think that will be a big challenge for the entire intelligence community and I think you'll have a key role to play in synergizing that across all the difficult agencies that serve us in that regard. The second issue I want to talk to you about is our detention policy. I'm troubled by the direction it's taken. We know for a fact and you've seen in open source reporting that a number of former Gitmo detainees have gone on to rejoin the fight against us. American citizens have been killed. Others are still out there fighting against us now. What is your view of our detention policy at the end of the last Administration and do you have any views now about what you would advise the President in terms of how we should--what our detention policy for terrorists and enemy combatants should be in the new Administration? Senator Coats. I've had the opportunity to travel with Senator Burr and other members of the committee, with Senator Burr leading our contingent and before him Senator Chambliss and Senator Feinstein. These questions have been asked of intelligence agencies in terms of what has happened to those that have been released from Guantanamo? Are they running a Starbucks in Yemen or have they rejoined the fight? A significant percentage of those have rejoined the fight. So I know we have a high-value target individual team in place that can look at this situation and make these determinations as to who may or may not be released. But this is an ongoing conflict and the last thing we want to do is tell the American people that we're sending somebody back in to become once again our adversary. So I've been supporting that detention, which I think is done in a lawful way, done in a humane way. But simply sending everybody back home I don't think is a solution to the problem. Senator Rubio. I know I'm out of time. Just a point of clarification. Number one, I believe the last Starbucks in Yemen closed last week and so that--but on a serious matter, Robert Levinson, who is a former FBI agent, disappeared from Kish Island, Iran, in 2007. He is believed widely to be held by Iran, by elements of the Iranian government. His family are from Florida and I would just ask in your new role that you pledge to do everything possible to help locate Bob and help bring him home. Senator Coats. Yes, in my closing months in the Senate I was also advised of someone else who was put in a similar situation, this one in Turkey. And our office has been working to try to determine what the basis of this was and to get him released. So I'm well aware of the situation from a personal basis in terms of our needing to address these issues. Chairman Burr. Senator Manchin. Senator Manchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again, Senator. It's great serving with you, Dan, and great to have you back. Senator Coats. Thank you, Joe. Senator Manchin. That being said, there's been some tough questioning here and there's a lot of concern. We're in a difficult time and period of our life with this Intel Committee. I'm new to this committee, so I'm learning it as quickly as I can. But I think people are depending on us. I know that Senator King and myself and Senator Harris and I, being the newest members on this side of the aisle, we're trying to get up to speed as quickly as possible. I think I would first ask--I think the question was asked you by our Ranking Member about would you be able to turn over the information and make sure we had access to the information. You said that was your intent. Do you have the authority to make--if we're getting what we consider slow-rolled, do you have that authority to make sure that we're able to have that access, whether it be any one of the 17 agencies, that we need to conduct a full investigation? Senator Coats. Yes. I hope I said more than intent. That's my authority. That's my obligation. Senator Manchin. Do you have the---- Senator Coats. Timely is part of the equation here and it needs to be given to you completely, timely, unvarnished. Senator Manchin. So we can count on that, basically? Senator Coats. Yes, you can. Senator Manchin. Right now a lot of people are frustrated. Senator Coats. Yes, you can. Senator Manchin. I want to make sure. Senator Coats. I have no intention of holding anything back from this committee, the access to this committee that they need. Senator Manchin. Senator, the other question I would ask is that--when I look back at 2004 when the DNI was created, what do you think the purpose was? Who lost faith? Who lost confidence? Why did we think we needed a DNI to be formed? Have you evaluated that? Senator Coats. Well, I have done some evaluation and some reading and some discussions with the members, some of those who were part of that process from the beginning. I served both with Senator Lieberman and, obviously, with Senator Collins, and I know their role in this, and others. Senator Manchin. We didn't reduce any of the 17 agencies. We still have the same 17 agencies. Senator Coats. What was happening, there was the so-called stovepipe process. They weren't sharing information with each other the way that they should. There was no way to integrate it. Everybody put out their own. Some of it was dismissed, some of it, well, we have more faith in this agency than that agency. You didn't get a complete picture. I kind of view this as building, making a puzzle, and you've got 17 pieces that all need to come together. You want the input from those 17 to be put in the right place, but you want that all to come together into one picture. There will be some dissenting views in there, yes. If there are dissenting views from this agency or that agency or the different views about the confidence level of what the intelligence is, you need to know that. But what the committee needs to know and what the President and the customers in the Executive Branch need to know is that to the best of our ability this integrated intelligence is provided to you by all the 17 agencies pulling together every little piece of that puzzle. Senator Manchin. Do you think the 17 agencies believe that you have the authority or the DNI has that authority to remove them, remove that director or take it extremely strongly by the President for that person to be removed if they're not doing their job? Senator Coats. Well, taking to the President, these are Presidentially appointed positions. Senator Manchin. What I'm saying is, do they look at the DNI as having that authority, that really that's who they're answering to, that's their boss? Senator Coats. Well, there's collaboration authority and there's other authorities. We had a discussion of that a little bit earlier about the initial views of those who are putting it together or for various reasons modified it as it moved through the legislative process, or with the Executive Branch coming in and making recommendations. Senator Manchin. Do you think in that position, the DNI, that with all of the additional news media, the 24-hour news cycle we have, the social media, everything that's going on today on the internet, the so-called ``fake news,'' if you will, do you think the DNI has a responsibility to speak up and say, this is a bunch of hogwash, there's no credibility to this whatsoever, for the American public to figure out what's real and what's not real? Senator Coats. Well, we have a role, a role to provide intelligence. But making decisions relative to policy--and we can make analysis to provide to you, to provide to our policymakers. But it was mentioned earlier, truth to power. Our job is to provide the truth, and power goes to those people who are in a position to make those determinations, make policy, make corrections, make laws, et cetera. That's what we bring to you, not that--we're not spokesmen. Senator Manchin. You don't believe that basically, on the so-called New York Times article, that whether, what side people might be on--that there should be any clarity coming from the DNI? Senator Coats. We provide that information. I don't envision myself as going on CNN every night and saying, here's what we've done. I envision providing that information to the policymakers to let them make that decision. Senator Manchin. Dan, one final question. Many leaders have identified Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and ISIS as the top security threats to the United States. Have you chosen one who you think is our top security threat? Senator Coats. It's kind of an `àll of above'' category here, I think, given the diversity of threats that we have. I mentioned earlier on that cyber has moved very quickly, I think, to the top in terms of--because it affects almost everything we do in this country in terms of people's safety, in terms of financial, commercial, our national defense, intellectual property, and on and on you can go. Senator Manchin. Is one most capable that you're concerned about? Senator Coats. You know, I would like to take that to the closed session. I have some strong thoughts about that, but I think that could potentially turn into something we need to do in the closed session. Senator Manchin. That's fair. Thank you so much, and thank you for your continued service---- Senator Coats. Thank you. Senator Manchin [continuing]. And willingness to serve. Senator Coats. Thank you. Chairman Burr. Senator Lankford. Senator Lankford. Dan, it's absolutely great to see you again. I'm sure you're enjoying being on that side of the desk, because you can't get up and leave when you need to or be able to come in and out or take a quick phone call. You're stuck right there. Senator Coats. Yes. Senator Lankford. So it really is great to see you. Senator Coats. Thank you. Senator Lankford. I do want to follow up on a conversation that Senator King had with you. I would say I had the same line of questioning for you that I just want to be able to close the loop on. You're one of the nicest people I've ever met. Senator Coats. Thank you. Senator Lankford. And that is to your credit, not only to your faith and your family, but the people you've served for a long time. But I really want the DNI to be able to be tough when it requires to be tough and to be clear when it's time to be clear, because the policymakers around you need clarity, need straightforward facts, need the facts that they know that they can trust. And we'll deal with nice in the hallway when we can grab a bottle of water together and get a chance to chit- chat. But I need to hear a clarification from you again that when the moment comes and it's crunch time you can be as tough as you need to be. Senator Coats. James, I think that's--Senator. I'm sorry. Senator Lankford. ``James'' is always good. Senator Coats. You said such nice things about me, I just fell into our friendship. Senator, I absolutely understand that this role demands someone who can stand up to the pressures that will be placed upon him, political pressures. When you have 17 agencies, not everybody's going to agree in terms of the way to go forward, and there needs to be a Director who can assert that authority. I've been blessed, I have Mary Scott who backs me up with good wise counsel. But I recognize the need for that. Given the situation that we are facing worldwide in terms of these threats, we don't have time just to be the nice guy. We've got to go after it. Senator Lankford. I have often said to people in my state that challenge me for being too nice at times, I say I can say ``No'' with a smile still, but still be able to stand by it. And I know you can as well. But that'll be an area you're pushed on. But I'll also say to you that some of the pressure won't just be from the policymakers around you. There is a tendency with all of us in the political world, as well as with the intelligence community, to somewhat chase the priorities of the headline, of the latest news story, and that becomes the IC priority. For many in the IC community, they saw the cyber issue a long time ago. The media is only recently catching up to the real threats that we face on cyber. So one of the things that we will need from you in the days ahead is to keep the agencies on focus to where the real threats are, not just where the headlines are. A good for-instance of this is, it's amazing to me how little we talk about narco-terrorism any more and we have tens of thousands of people who die through either the trafficking, the individuals, of drugs, or from overdoses as a result of that, that are Americans dying all the time. It's one of the constant threats that we have, but the news doesn't talk about it much any more and so it somewhat drifts to the background. You have the responsibility to be able to make sure it doesn't drift to the background among our intelligence community, that we stay on focus on the threats that we face all the time, and that when the issues come up we're on top of them. Let me ask a strange question for us. When we get a chance to visit together, will we still be able to talk about the ``Coats Waste of the Week''? Will you still be focused in on `Ì found an area that we need to resolve''? You know as well as all of us do on this dais that at times working with the Administration, if there are things that need to be fixed, there is some other entity that sees it, but the practitioners in the agency actually see the problem. We need help in the oversight part of it, that when you see something in any of the 17 entities or your own office, can you help us be able to see some of those things as well, to be able to know what to fix legislatively? Senator Coats. Yes, I intend to do that. I went with some passion every week to the Senate floor 55 times to address a ``Certified Waste of the Week.'' I've already looked around a little bit and said maybe that fits the ``Waste of the Week'' category, let's investigate that. Obviously, I would have to be confirmed before I could start that process. But I'm committed to doing that. I want to just reflect basically on what you said about the narco-terrorism. You and I have talked about this personally. I think each of us has experienced talking to families who tragically have lost a member of that family because of--maybe a 17-year-old going to a party and somebody says, ``Here, try this,'' and they end up in the hospital and many of them perish. It is a scourge that is cutting across every part of our country. We have it in Indiana. You have it in your state and every one of our members has it. It is something that can't be ignored or pushed aside. It is undermining the very essence of this country and it's affecting families and communities in ways that haven't made the headlines as much as they should. But it has to be a component of this, and intelligence does play a role in terms of how these things are brought into our country or within our country manufactured. Senator Lankford. Thanks, Dan. Chairman Burr. Senator Harris. Senator Harris. Senator Coats, I enjoyed our time together and thank you for that. Senator Coats. Thank you. I did also. Senator Harris. I noted many of my colleagues have raised the issue of the restructuring of the National Security Council. I'd like to talk about that a little bit more, because I'm sure you agree it's critically important as it relates to what we need to accomplish in terms of national security. As has been mentioned, the President's Executive Order was issued on January 28th, which basically put the Director of National Intelligence in a place where he or you, if confirmed, would not be included necessarily in the National Security Council meetings and the Principals Committee meetings. If confirmed as the Director of National Intelligence, do you believe that it's critically important that you have a permanent role in those meetings? Senator Coats. Yes. Senator Harris. And have you requested of the President or any member of his Administration that that Executive Order be modified? Senator Coats. We have sent them information as to how to modify it. It has not been addressed yet, but I have been reassured over and over and over by the President and his staff that absolutely that's what their intent was and they expect me to be there. Senator Harris. Have they given you a date of when it will be modified? Senator Coats. They have not given me a date. Senator Harris. Is it going to happen before your confirmation? Senator Coats. They have not given me a date and I can't answer--I do not know of a particular date. Senator Harris. Now, my understanding is that the CIA Director was--that the Executive Order was modified on January 30th. Senator Coats. Correct. Senator Harris. And it was modified to include the CIA Director; is that correct? Senator Coats. That's correct. Senator Harris. Okay. So you mentioned earlier that the Executive Order was basically something from the Bush era that had been resuscitated. But it has been modified since it was issued; you agree to that, is that correct? Senator Coats. I think it was the 30th. I need to---- Senator Harris. Well, it's been modified since it was issued under this Administration? Senator Coats. No, it has not been modified. Senator Harris. So when was the CIA Director added to that? Senator Coats. That was part of the original. Senator Harris. No, it wasn't. Senator Coats. Okay. It was a press conference statement. It was not an action that was taken. Senator Harris. Okay, because I have a copy of that here and it was added back to the National Security Council. So the point is that this Bush-era document has been modified since it was issued to include the CIA Director, but it did not put back in DNI. Senator Coats. I may be wrong in saying it was a Bush-era. Senator Harris. You indicated that that's what the Administration told you. Senator Coats. I said my understanding was that language was taken from a similar Executive Order issued under the Bush Administration and that order was issued before there was a position of DNI. And I have been told verbally that the intent was not to leave the DNI's position off, just that someone drafting that language didn't realize that that language didn't include the DNI because there was no DNI at that particular point in time. But the bottom line is, the bottom line is is that I have full, 100 percent confidence that I will be part of the Principals Committee. Yes---- Senator Harris. Well, my concern is not about--on this point, not about your qualifications. My concern is about what environment you're walking into, and in particular whether, if confirmed, you will actually have a seat in that body. And if the Administration is telling you that it was some document that was issued in a time gone by, we know that it has since been modified to include the CIA, it did not include the Joint Chiefs, and it has not replaced the position for which you are here to testify. So my concern is that there has been no indication or assurance given that you will, if confirmed, actually be a member of that body. And I'd like to know from you, if that does not happen are you prepared to still assume the responsibilities without the authority that you would have if you were a member of that body? Senator Coats. I'm fully prepared to assume the responsibilities. Senator Harris. Even if you are--even if the Executive Order is not modified? Senator Coats. Yes, I am. I've been assured that I have the authority to be a member of that committee and be at that committee in every one of its meetings. Senator Harris. Wouldn't you agree the assurance would be sealed if the Executive Order is modified to indicate that the position that you now seek is actually entitled to be a part of all meetings that relate to national security? Senator Coats. As I've indicated before, I'm going to take that message to the Administration that the question was raised here. I'm perfectly comfortable with it because I trust them and I believe what they have told me and I intend to do this. But---- Senator Harris. I would be concerned because they've---- Senator Coats. I would like to get back to you---- Senator Harris [continuing]. Also suggested that this came from the Bush era and we know that there have been modifications since. I would be concerned. But I appreciate your service and your candor. Senator Coats. Thank you. Senator Harris. Thank you. Senator Coats. Thank you. Chairman Burr. Senator Cotton. Senator Cotton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dan, for once again answering the call of service. Senator Coats. Thank you. Senator Cotton. And Marsha, for once again standing beside Dan as he answers the call of service. It's good to see you back here and I congratulate you on your nomination. We've spoken some about the unique challenges and opportunities of trying to integrate all 17 agencies within the intelligence community that you'll face as the DNI. You're obviously very familiar with them. You're familiar with the kind of intelligence products they each produce and the priorities that they each have. Have you any thoughts on what actions can be taken in the very short run to make that process work more efficiently and to produce a coherent picture for policymakers of what's happening in the world overseas in your role as DNI? Senator Coats. Obviously, there's a lot I need to learn. I want to get acquainted with the various leaders of the agencies. But as I have said before, given the nature of the threats that we face, we need to act sooner rather than later. I've always believed that getting the right people in place is what can best execute the doctrine in terms of achieving the goals that you want to achieve. So we will quickly, if confirmed, move into that mode of filling that up. I did recognize earlier on the previous leaders of ODNI and the smooth transition that they have arranged by ensuring that there's continuity during this gap period of time. But this is one of--this rises to an early responsibility. Senator Cotton. One of the original purposes of the ODNI was to take the disparate kinds of intelligence that is collected by our intelligence agencies, be it human intelligence, bank records, satellite imagery, email and telephone intercepts, passenger manifests, and synthesize them all together to create a coherent picture. I think that's an important function and it still can play that function and part today. One thing I have heard on occasion from my visits to the various agencies and talking with their front-line personnel is that the DNI over time has imposed bureaucratic mandates on the agencies in reporting requirements, HR requirements, and so forth, that get their core collectors or their analysts out of the business of core collection and analyzing and spend too much of their time focused on fulfilling those bureaucratic mandates. Have you seen that in your preparation and do you have any thoughts about how you might focus the DNI on that original mission and keep the constituent agencies of the IC focused on their original mission? Senator Coats. Well, I haven't had enough experience to evaluate that. I will certainly take that as an issue to address. But without the confirmation, I haven't had the opportunity to engage with the other 16 agencies, except to begin to formulate some relationships with a few of them, starting with the Director of Central Intelligence. We've had a number of occasions to talk to each other and share what we think the concerns are and what we think we need to do. I think that relationship is a very important relationship, maybe the first important relationship. So we're already working to establish that. Senator Cotton. Thank you. Finally, you mentioned the Robb-Silberman Commission in your opening statement. That was a commission of experts tasked to recommend ways to ensure that the intelligence community, quote, `ìs sufficiently authorized, organized, equipped, trained, and resourced,'' end quote. What kind of lessons, if any, would you take away from the report of the Robb-Silberman Commission and how applicable are those today, recognizing that we're about a decade on? Senator Coats. Well, not all of those recommendations were implemented. I think it's worth going back and looking at the original intent and then the reports from Robb-Silberman. They made a number of recommendations which were constructive. But I just think, after 12 years or so, the agency clearly has evolved into what it is today, but taking a look back at where it was intended in the first place to go--and as I said, this was a compromise piece of legislation, like most legislation. It was interesting, in the articles I was reading they talked to the former directors and a total of eight people who were in a position to make an assessment as to what exactly the authorities of the DNI were, and there were eight different answers. So I think that alone is a signal that we ought to perhaps go back and look and see if we want to make some adjustments to the law. Now, that would have to be done in conjunction with the Congress, of course. But at some point, I think maybe sooner rather than later, that would be something we ought to look at. Senator Cotton. Thank you and congratulations again. Senator Coats. Thank you. Chairman Burr. Senator Cornyn. Senator Cornyn. Senator Coats, congratulations. Thank you for answering the call to duty once more, and particularly to your wife Marsha, who has always supported you through all your public service. This is a great continuing contribution and I would expect nothing less from you. So thank you for that. I wanted to ask about two subjects, one basically to ask for your help in your new job once confirmed. I've become concerned that the Foreign Agent Registration Act, which originally passed back in 1938, needs to be updated. For example, we experienced during the time that Congress passed a bill called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act that once Congress voted unanimously to pass that, the President vetoed it and Congress overrode his veto, that a foreign government spent an untold amount of money to try to lobby the United States Congress. It troubled me because I'm not sure many people knew what the source of the funds or the source of the lobbying effort was. It just strikes me as really important, particularly in light of the Russian activities that are going to be the subject of investigation here, that we look at the Foreign Agent Registration Act to see if it needs to be updated so the Congress and the public can see where money is coming from by foreign countries perhaps hiring lobbyists on K Street to try to influence domestic legislation. So I'd like to ask for your help and your office's help to work on that. Senator Coats. Well, you have that. I want to do that. I think more transparency needs to be offered to the public relative to what this is and what this isn't. Senator Cornyn. Absolutely, absolutely. I want to go back to a comment that was made by one of our colleagues, my friend from Oregon, who's asked you and others to produce the numbers of innocent Americans swept up in intelligence-gathering operations. I just want you to talk, if you will, briefly about all the various minimization procedures to suppress incidental or inadvertent communications. First of all, it is illegal to target an American citizen, correct? Senator Coats. That is correct. Senator Cornyn. Without a search warrant. Senator Coats. That is correct. Senator Cornyn. So what we're talking about primarily is targeting foreign intelligence persons overseas. Senator Coats. 702 is specifically designed for that purpose. Senator Cornyn. And by the way, the Director of the FBI as recently as yesterday in my presence referred to 702 as ``the crown jewels of the intelligence community.'' Would you agree with that characterization? Senator Coats. I would. I would and the intelligence community also sees it that way, the entire community. Senator Cornyn. So we all saw what happened during the course of the debate over the USA Freedom Act, which ultimately I voted for. But I'm concerned that we not let the debate on the reauthorization of Section 702 get caught up in that same sort of hysteria, where some people were worried that the Federal Government was spying on them when that decidedly was untrue. But that's history. But I want to make sure, given the importance of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to our intelligence community, that we make sure that we do everything possible, first, to educate everyone so that they understand what is authorized and what is not authorized, and then to work with the Congress to come up with an orderly way to make sure that these crown jewels of the intelligence community, this Section 702, is authorized. I want people to understand that people aren't targeted, even foreign agents overseas, without court approval, and there is judicial review from time to time. There is oversight and review within the Executive Branch, and heaven knows there's a lot of oversight here in the Congress over this, as well as in the various intelligence agencies themselves. There are layers of protection to make sure that no American has to worry about their own government spying on them. In fact, every conceivable effort is being made to prevent that and to protect the privacy rights of Americans, which we all agree is important. So I just ask for your continued help. Obviously, you know a lot about the topic. But given the particular importance of the reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, we need to work together early to try to educate people, to try to better inform everybody involved, so that they can be reassured that the proper balance between privacy rights, which we all agree are important, but national security, that exactly the right balance is struck. Senator Coats. Senator, I couldn't agree with you more. A lot of my colleagues have heard me talk when I was a member of the committee about finding that balance. I think from one end of the spectrum to the other end of the spectrum we all are on the same page, that we cherish our private rights in this country. They're constitutionally provided to us. We want to do everything we can to make sure those private rights are secure. But we also know that the Constitution requires us to provide for the common defense, and we are under attack from a number of sources now, that, whether it's through cyber or whether it's through any of a number of other ways, the United States is vulnerable to attack. And they want us to provide--to do everything we can to keep them safe. So finding that balance so that we don't take away private rights and at the same time use the necessary tools to determine what the bad guys are trying to do, that's important, that we find that balance point so we can accomplish both of those. 702 is designed to go after foreign bad guys. It's lawful collection. In that process there are some incidental, let's just call it, incidental names of Americans, potential names of Americans. Some bad guy might have on his laptop the names of 40 Americans. So if he's targeted for something, all of a sudden 40 American names. Now, we've put a process in place in devising this law that there's minimization of this. I won't go into all the details of minimization because I can't explain it as well as others can. But it is a process that understands that we're not targeting these people, but incidentally they came up because they were on this guy's email or on his phone list. The level of oversight here is all three branches of government, and it's significant to try to secure those privacies. There's a query practice. But all these are authorized. All these are under court review and oversight review. This is such a critical tool, I think it deserves full transparency to the level that we can while still protecting sources and methods and classified information. We need to ensure that the public is not led into a situation where they think they're, in deference to my colleague from Oregon, sweeping up, collecting information about them. We're trying to sort it out so that we can find out if that bad guy in Syria or wherever is talking to someone in the United States--we kind of want to know what they're talking about. And there are processes there that protect rights and sort that out. Senator Cornyn. And there's procedures to go to court if there is---- Senator Coats. There are procedures to go to court. Senator Cornyn [continuing]. If content needs to be secured, and you have to show probable cause and the court has to issue a warrant. Senator Coats. All of that, all of that. I worried when I went back home on the issue of bulk collection and metadata. Now, that's been resolved. 215 of the Patriot Act has been--we don't do that any more. But I was constantly asked by people back at home: What about this megadata? And I said: No, it's not ``megadata''; it's ``metadata.'' No, no; it's ``megadata''; they're collecting everything on us, they're listening to all our calls. I asked then--Keith Alexander, who was head of the NSA. He said: Well, if we were listening to everybody's calls we would have to hire 330 million people to work 24 hours a day. That's impossible; we're not. We're just trying to sort out the bad guys from the good guys. Now, that's a discussion that we don't have to have. It's done. It's the law. We're following the law. We have a new system now and it would be up to policymakers if they want to make any adjustments to that. But the 702 is such a valuable tool regarding what foreign bad people are trying to do to Americans that I think the intelligence community feels very strongly about it. It's your decision. We need to provide you with the information that you need in order to make decisions as to how to go forward with this program. I'm sorry I got into a sermon mode there and it's a little bit over the top and I used up your time. Chairman Burr. Your wife was giving you this [indicating]. Senator Coats. That wouldn't be the first time, Richard. [Laughter.] Chairman Burr. Senator Wyden has asked for one additional question. Are there other members who seek additional questions? [No response.] Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we do need to clarify this 702 issue, because it is critical to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Let's stipulate that I and every member of the Senate wants to go after the foreign threats or, as you correctly call them, ``foreign bad guys.'' No question about it. What has happened, because communications have gotten so sophisticated and globally integrated, an indeterminate number of innocent Americans have their communications being collected under Section 702, and the government can then conduct searches for their communications without a court order or even a particular suspicion. Now, to just step back, our two-part question. I asked you if you would get the public the number of how many innocent, law-abiding Americans are being swept under FISA 702 collection. You said yes. And then you went on to say it was hard. So my two-part question is: Is the answer still yes, you will get us the number; and since we have been trying to get this for years and years, literally, as you know from being on the committee, will you commit now to getting us a report every 30 days until we get this number? We need it for reauthorization and it goes right to the heart, frankly, of how you do the balance you're talking about: foreign bad guys, absolutely; but an indeterminate number of people are being swept up because global communications are now so sophisticated. So two-part question: Will you stay with your earlier answer and say you will get us the number of innocent Americans who are swept up before reauthorization? That is a yes-or-no. And before you answer yes--is the answer still yes? Is it yes or no? Senator Coats. Senator, I can't answer that with yes or no because I qualified my yes with you. At least that was my intent. Let me just explain. I qualified it because I said it has been extremely hard to come up with that number for various reasons, which I don't fully understand. I said I wanted to talk to Director Rogers, I wanted to talk to NSA, in terms of what's the problem here, why can't we, and what is the right definition in terms of swept up and the number. So basically, what I hope that I said--and I want to clarify the record for this--is that I will do my best to work to try to find out if we can get that number, but I need first to find out about why we can't get it. I don't think anybody's trying to withhold it from you. Senator Wyden. Let's go to my second part. Will you commit now to getting us a response every 30 days until we get this question answered? Because this has gone on literally--I say this to my friend: this has gone on for years, and it has been sort of one reason after another. And these are law-abiding Americans. So will you report to us every 30 days until we get this answered? That's a yes or no. Senator Coats. Well, I don't see that as a yes or no either until I get the answer in terms of whether that's even possible. I can call up Admiral Rogers once every 30 days and say, where are we. But I would like to first understand why it is, what the issue is here in terms of getting that exact number. I don't want to come up with a number that once again tells the American people something that---- Senator Wyden. Nobody's ever come up with a number here. We've had years of stalling on this. This is a legitimate question. You're a friend. I need to know the answer. I need to know the answers to those questions before we have a vote in here, because this is central to your key priority, which is reauthorizing 702. You've got me at a low on going after the foreign threats, but I'm not there with respect to these answers on innocent Americans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. The Chair would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter to the committee, Senator Warner, and myself from the Electronic Privacy Information Center. Without objection, so ordered. [The material referred to follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Burr. Dan, one last question. Just to make it clear, the Executive Order, which was National Security Presidential Memorandum No. 2, has not been amended since it was issued, correct? Senator Coats. That is absolutely correct. Chairman Burr. There was a question. It wasn't clear in my mind exactly how it was answered, and I just wanted to make sure that we cleared the record. Senator Coats. I'm glad you made that clarification, yes. Chairman Burr. At this time, the open hearing will adjourn and we will reconvene in a closed hearing upstairs. [Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] Supplemental Material [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [all]

Committee Leadership

Tom Cotton

Mark Warner

All Committee Members

Recent Legislation Activity

Hearings & Meetings

Reports & Publications

Committee Resources