Open Hearing: Nomination of John L. Ratcliffe to be the Director of National Intelligence

[Senate Hearing 116-467] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 116-467 OPEN HEARING TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF JOHN L. RATCLIFFE TO BE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2020 __________ Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Intelligence [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov __________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 40-699 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 TOM COTTON, Arkansas KAMALA HARRIS, California JOHN CORNYN, Texas MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado BEN SASSE, Nebraska MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky, Ex Officio CHUCK SCHUMER, New York, Ex Officio JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma, Ex Officio JACK REED, Rhode Island, Ex Officio ---------- Chris Joyner, Staff Director Michael Casey, Minority Staff Director Kelsey Stroud Bailey, Chief Clerk CONTENTS ---------- MAY 5, 2020 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 3 WITNESS Cornyn, John, a U.S. Senator from Texas, On Behalf Of Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft................................. 5 Prepared statement of Attorney General John Ashcroft......... 7 Ratcliffe, John L., Nominated to be Director of National Intelligence................................................... 12 Prepared statement........................................... 16 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Questionnaire for Completion by Presidential Nominees........ 60 Additional Prehearing Questions.............................. 88 Posthearing Questions for the Record......................... 171 OPEN HEARING TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF JOHN L. RATCLIFFE TO BE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ---------- TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2020 U.S. Senate, Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in Room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard Burr (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. Present: Senators Burr, Warner, Risch, Rubio, Collins, Blunt, Cotton, Cornyn, Sasse, Feinstein, Wyden, Heinrich, King, Harris, Bennet, and Reed. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, CHAIRMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA Chairman Burr. I'd like to call this hearing to order. This hearing will be a little bit different. It is perhaps the first Congressional hearing held during the extenuating circumstances of the pandemic. We have a sparse crowd and an expanded dais reflective of the Committee's adherence to the guidelines put forth by the Rules Committee and the Attending Physician. I'd like to thank our Members and staff for their patience and understanding as we work through the logistics involved in holding this hearing, which is a critical part of the Committee's ongoing oversight of the Intelligence Community. Members will be joining us on a rotating basis throughout the morning and again this afternoon as we move to a closed session. Their absence now is not a reflection of the importance they place on this matter. We have asked Members to watch as much of the hearings as they can from their offices, only coming into the hearing room to ask questions. I'd also like to thank the press corps for your accommodation of the restrictions we're facing as we seek to fulfill our requirements to hold this nomination hearing in an open setting, or at least as open as current circumstances allow. Media in the room today are serving as a pool representative for the broader media community, and I know they will ensure quick and unvarnished dissemination of what is discussed in this hearing. While I'm certain the atmosphere of this setting will feature prominently in media coverage, I know the media will be focused on the important intelligence oversight and Committee management issues that are also going to be discussed. Finally, I want to thank the nominee who has patiently waited for this hearing. I know he's ready to get to work leading the Intelligence Community, which has continued to do its vital work under increasingly difficult conditions. These intelligence professionals--our eyes, our ears--follow developments we see in the headlines and threats that most of us will never see, from terrorists who seek to do us harm to cyber actors probing critical infrastructure to foreign intelligence officers capitalizing on the current situation to steal research from defense contractors or physics professors. Countries around the world have locked down, but those threats have not stopped. Our Intelligence Community, as always, remains on watch, joining their uniformed brothers and sisters guarding a grateful, if perhaps distracted, Nation. They deserve, and the country needs a certainty of a permanent Senate-confirmed Director of National Intelligence. After that extended introduction, I'd like to formally welcome our witness, Congressman John Ratcliffe, President Trump's nominee to be the next Director of National Intelligence. John, congratulations on your nomination. I wish I could also welcome your wife Michele and your daughters, Riley and Darby. I know they wanted to be here. But given our attempts to minimize the number of people in the hearing room, I send them my appreciation via C-SPAN. I thank them for their willingness to go on this journey with you and for their support. Today we will consider Congressman Ratcliffe's qualifications and engage in thoughtful deliberation. The Congressman has already provided substantive and written responses to more than 125 questions presented by Committee Members, and today's proceedings allow for further in-person discussions. Congressman Ratcliffe was elected in November of 2014 to the House of Representatives from the 4th District of Texas. He serves on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Judiciary Committee, and the House Ethics Committee. Prior to his service in Congress, Mr. Ratcliffe was a partner in a law firm. During his tenure at the Department of Justice, he served as the First Assistant U.S. Attorney, as the Chief for Antiterrorism and National Security for the Eastern District of Texas, and then as the interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas. During that time Mr. Ratcliffe also served as Mayor for the City of Heath, Texas. Congressman Ratcliffe received his undergraduate degree from the University of Notre Dame. He received his law degree from Southern Methodist University. Congressman, you've been asked to lead the Intelligence Community at a time of profound threat and challenge. Given your experience as a Member of the House Intelligence Committee, we expect that you will lead the Intelligence Community with integrity, serve as a forceful advocate for the professionals in the IC, and ensure that the intelligence enterprise operates lawfully, ethically, and morally. I can assure you this Committee will continue to 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 expect honest, complete, and timely responses. I want to thank you, again, for being here, for your years of service to our country, and I look forward to your testimony. Before I turn to the Vice Chairman, I'd like to take a moment to note the passing of our dear friend, Tom Coburn. Tom served this Nation with distinction in the House and in the Senate and was a valuable member of this Committee. He cared deeply for this Committee, its staff, and the men and women of the Intelligence Community. He understood the importance of their mission and the mission of this Committee. His advice, counsel, and friendship will sorely be missed, and I utilized it no less than a month and a half ago. Some might wonder why my face looks a little hairy. This is the only way I could think of doing a tribute to Tom Coburn, and that was to do what Tom did when things were confusing and we lacked understanding as to what direction to go up here. As most of us know, Tom would come back, and he wouldn't shave for a month, two months, six months until things squared away. I'm not sure I'm going to wait until things are squared away, but I will wait until Tom's memorial service to properly memorialize him. I now recognize the distinguished Vice Chairman for any opening remarks he might have today. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK R. WARNER, VICE CHAIRMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA Vice Chairman Warner. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it's good to see you and my other colleagues. Let me start off for a moment where you left off. As somebody who spent literally years and years with Tom Coburn on a weekly basis, with the ill-fated Gang of Six effort, I got to know Tom's intelligence, integrity, irascible nature. Is that the right word? I share with you that he will be missed, and I would have joined you in that kind of tribute, but if you saw how badly a beard would look--any time I've tried to grow a beard, I'm probably doing better tribute by just saying things about him. Mr. Ratcliffe, it's great to see you. I know these are normally hearings where we are supposed to see the impression in the whites of your eyes. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to make that kind of judgment from here with my slightly aging eyes. I get the general sense of you, and I can actually see a little smile at that point. If it turns to grimaces at times, we'll know. But it's great to have you, and I appreciated the opportunity we had last Friday to spend some quality time together. Unfortunately, as the Chairman's already noted, I once again must note that these are unprecedented times. America faces the challenge to our lives and security that we've not had in over half a century. And it's during such trying times that we all recognize the value of nonpartisan expertise throughout our government. Nowhere is this clearer that in the apolitical Intelligence Community. The IC collects intelligence on imminent and potential threats, analyzes them dispassionately, and presents its best estimates without fear or favor to our Nation's leaders. This is essential so that policymakers can craft a timely and effective response to protect America. And nowhere is the need for competent, apolitical leadership clearer than in the position of the Director of National Intelligence who stands at the head of the Nation's 17 intelligence agencies. Unfortunately, what we've seen from the President ever since he came into office is an unrelenting and, I believe, undeserved attack upon our professional women and men of our intelligence agencies. This is not because our Intelligence Community is deserving of these attacks. Nor are they at the heart of some, quote unquote, deep state conspiracy to undermine our political leaders. No, I believe the President attacks our intelligence agencies for one simple reason, because unvarnished truth and unembellished analysis are not welcome in this White House. What we've seen over the last year has been especially dangerous: the systematic firing of anyone at the ODNI who has the temerity to speak truth to power. From DNI Dan Coats and Principal Deputy DNI Sue Gordon to acting DNI Admiral Joe Maguire to acting Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Russ Travers to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community Michael Atkinson. These firings and forced departures from the leadership of the Intelligence Community have left the ODNI without a single Senate-confirmed leader at the helm. Instead, an acting DNI, with no experience in intelligence, but with plenty of political loyalty to the President, has been appointed to oversee America's intelligence enterprise. As acting DNI this individual promptly instituted a hiring freeze and a reorganization whose purpose has not been communicated to the intelligence oversight committees. He also quickly fired senior leaders with decades of experience in the IC. Alarmingly we have begun to hear reports that intelligence professionals have been inappropriately pressured to limit the information they share with Congress. And now Mr. Ratcliffe, the President has nominated you to this critical position of national security and intelligence leadership. I have to say that while I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt during this hearing, I don't see what has changed since last summer when the President decided not to proceed with your nomination over concerns about your inexperience, partisanship, and past statements that seem to embellish your record. This includes some particularly damaging remarks about whistleblowers, which has long been a bipartisan cause on this Committee. I will speak plainly. I still have some of the same doubts now as I had back in August. Some have suggested that your main qualification for confirmation to this post is that you are not Ambassador Grenell. But frankly, that's not enough. Before we put the Senate stamp of approval and confirm a nominee to this critical position, Senators must demand the qualities that the Senate specified when it passed the law creating the ODNI after 9/11, legislation which my colleagues like Senator Collins helped author. We must expect and demand professionalism, a nonpartisan commitment to the truth, and a rock solid dedication to defending those who defend us every day--the professional women and men of our Nation's Intelligence Community. I hope that today we can get a sense of your ability to adhere to that requirement. I look forward to the questioning and look forward to this opportunity. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. I thank the Vice Chairman. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft was scheduled to be here to introduce Representative Ratcliffe. Given the current circumstances, he could not attend. He sent us his remarks and Senator Cornyn has kindly agreed to represent Attorney General Ashcroft today. Senator Cornyn, the floor is yours. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS, ON BEHALF OF FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always good to be with my colleagues on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Today it is my pleasure to introduce John Ratcliffe who is the nominee for the Director of National Intelligence. As the Chairman said, we do have a letter from the former Attorney General and it is rather lengthy. I'm not going to read all of it but I will refer to some excerpts. I would ask consent that it be made part of the record following my remarks. Chairman Burr. So ordered. Senator Cornyn. And the reason why I think it is so important for the Committee and the Senate to hear from former Attorney General Ashcroft is because of his intimate knowledge of the professional qualifications of the nominee as well as the personal qualifications, his intelligence, and his integrity. Let me just start by reading an excerpt from Attorney General Ashcroft's letter. He said: `Ìntegrity is the indispensable imperative for intelligence, the best friend of national security, and national security is the singular portfolio most allergic to the infection and devaluation that results from inaccuracy and distortion. For high-quality decision-making, sound intelligence must never be contaminated by personal bias or political predisposition.'' General Ashcroft goes on to say: `Ì have known and worked with John for more than a decade and I know of no person, no person, with a higher commitment to integrity, and I have seen him speak the unvarnished truth to those he works with and works for, whether senior government officials or corporate CEOs.'' He makes the important point and he did in my conversation with him yesterday at his farm in Missouri, he makes the point that over the last 15 years Congressman Ratcliffe has served in crucial roles as both a developer and consumer of intelligence, a role that I think speaks to his background and qualifications for this job. Finally, he said: ``John Ratcliffe is committed to forging an Intelligence Community that delivers in a coordinated manner the most insightful and accurate intelligence and counterintelligence possible. He will serve decision-makers with fulsome, transparent intelligence that enables them to make decisions to defend the Nation from threats and to keep our citizens safe and free.'' Mr. Chairman, I know that coming to this nomination as a Member of Congress, that Congressman Ratcliffe, as any Member of Congress might, people wonder does he really understand the difference between being in the adversarial atmosphere that is Congress and that especially speaks to our oversight responsibilities. As somebody who has had the privilege of serving in all three branches of government, both as a judge, as Attorney General of Texas, and now as a legislator, I can tell you that John Ratcliffe has the personal integrity and intelligence to be able to understand the difference between being a legislator and being the Director of National Intelligence. These are simply different roles to be played while discharging our government responsibilities. So I think that is something you might want to ask him more about, something I hope he will address. But I have known John personally for 10 years, and I am proud to support his nomination and to give you my strongest personal recommendation. The Chairman has mentioned his experience on the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees as well as the Ethics Committee. I do believe that as a former U.S. Attorney he does understand, and as a current Member of the House Intelligence Committee he does understand, the vast threats our country is facing and the challenges that we face which lie ahead. We need to be able to count on a leader to operate free of personal or political motivations, serving only with the security and safety of the American people in mind. And I believe John Ratcliffe is the person to do that job. He is prepared to continue the legacy of outstanding leadership we have come to expect and count on from the DNI, and I have confidence in his ability to serve as a steadfast leader and advocate for the intelligence professionals of the IC and a trusted partner with this Committee. So Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Warner, I appreciate your careful consideration of my friend and fellow Texan, John Ratcliffe, and appreciate the opportunity to introduce him today. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Attorney General Ashcroft follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Burr. Senator Cornyn, thank you for that introduction. With that, Congressman Ratcliffe, if you would rise and 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? Congressman Ratcliffe. I do. Chairman Burr. Please be seated. Before we move to your statement, I will ask you five standard questions the Committee poses to each nominee who appears before us. They just require a simple yes or no answer. One, do you agree to appear before the Committee here and in other venues when invited? Congressman Ratcliffe. Yes. Chairman Burr. If confirmed, do you agree to send officials from your office to appear before the Committee and designated staff when invited? Congressman Ratcliffe. Yes. Chairman Burr. Do you agree to provide documents or any other materials requested by the Committee in order for it to carry out its oversight and legislative responsibilities? Congressman Ratcliffe. Yes. Chairman Burr. Will you ensure that your office and staff provide such materials to the Committee when requested? Congressman Ratcliffe. Yes. Chairman Burr. And five, do you agree to inform and fully brief the Committee to the fullest extent possible, all Members of this Committee, of the intelligence activities and covert action, rather than only the Chair and Vice Chair? Congressman Ratcliffe. Yes. Chairman Burr. I want to thank you very much. It's my intention to move to a Committee vote on this nomination as soon as possible. Therefore, for planning purposes, any Member who wishes to submit questions for the record after today's hearing, please do so quickly. We'll now proceed to your opening statement, after which I will recognize Members by seniority for five minutes. As discussed earlier, Members will have the opportunity to ask follow-up questions in the blocks that are designated. So let me state for the purposes of Members: We have 30-minute blocks. There is time allotted in that block for additional questions. There is not time in that block for everybody to have five minutes of additional questions. And I will state for Members, as the Vice Chairman and I have talked, at the end of 30 minutes, regardless of where we are in that block with those Senators, I will cut it off because we've got a dead stop for this room at 12:00. So I thank every Member for their accommodations. With that, Congressman Ratcliffe, the floor is yours. OPENING STATEMENT HON. JOHN L. RATCLIFFE, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE Congressman Ratcliffe. Chairman Burr, Vice Chairman Warner, and distinguished Members of the Committee, I'm honored to appear before you today as the President's nominee to be the next Director of National Intelligence. Before I begin, I'd like to acknowledge the efforts of the Committee staff, my own staff, as well as many officers at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence who helped get us here today. I appreciate their dedication in making today possible. I'd also like to share a few thoughts on the challenging times we face today. The COVID-19 pandemic has cut short the lives of over 67,000 Americans. It has sickened over 1 million Americans, and it has impacted every one of us. My deepest sympathies are with those we've lost, and I salute the efforts of those on the front lines, including the dedicated Intelligence Community professionals reporting for duty in carrying out their mission. These are truly trying times and your courage, honor, and sacrifice will not be forgotten. I'd like to begin by thanking President Trump for his incredible opportunity for me to serve our Nation and for his confidence in me. I'd also like to thank former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft for his gracious and humbling statement. I am forever grateful for your faith in me. I also want to recognize and thank Senator Cornyn for his kind words, and my fellow Texans for their support. It has been the privilege of my life to represent the constituents of the Texas 4th Congressional District. Finally, and most importantly, there's no way I could be with you today without the encouragement and support of my family. I'd like to recognize and thank my amazing wife Michele, our truly wonderful daughters Riley and Darby, my mom Kathy, and my five brothers and sisters--Kitty, Bob, Sharon, Pam, and Larry. Watching from above, I'm sure, is my late dad, Robert Ratcliffe. My career in public service is a direct reflection of my family's selflessness, their sacrifice, their enduring love of country, and for me. I simply don't have the words to adequately express my gratitude. My journey here today has been a mixture of public service and private sector experience. I graduated college at age 20, law school at age 23, tried my first case at age 24. A decade later, I was managing partner of my own law firm and, by most measures, I was successful. But something was missing. As the son of two public school teachers, I was taught from an early age the virtues of public service and self-sacrifice. Reflecting back, I realize it was those values that pushed me to a higher calling, one of service to the American people. The catalyst for me came on September 11, 2001. When the first plane struck, I was sitting on the 35th floor of a high-rise office building in Dallas, Texas, that looked a whole lot like the ones in New York that were under attack. I watched so many Americans give their lives that terrible day. And in the months that followed, I watched many more sacrifice so much to defend the United States. And it inspired me to take stock of all the gifts that I had been given and what I might contribute to the defense of this great Nation. Within a few years, I changed careers altogether. I left that civil law practice behind to become a Federal prosecutor in the United States Department of Justice. And during my four years in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Texas, I served as Chief of Antiterrorism and National Security, First Assistant U.S. Attorney, and, finally, U.S. Attorney. My daily responsibilities involved leading and managing, directing and prosecuting national security cases and related matters, including domestic and international terrorism, drug and human trafficking, transnational crime, and illegal immigration, among others. I led and managed the District's Joint Terrorism Task Force activities and work closely with Justice Department officials and FBI on terrorism prevention, the overriding priority for the Department of Justice. In these roles, I came to appreciate the value of coordinated and integrated interagency efforts and the importance of timely, accurate, and objective intelligence in keeping Americans safe. For the past six years, I've been fortunate to serve with you all in here in Congress. I've continued to prioritize national security issues seeking assignments on the House Intelligence, Judiciary, and Homeland Security Committees. Although serving the citizens of the 4th Congressional District of Texas has been the honor of a lifetime, I believe that my passion for service combined with my experience, my abilities, and my judgment make me the right person to now successfully lead the men and women of the Intelligence Community. If confirmed as DNI, my top priority will be to present the President, senior policymakers, and this Committee with objective and timely intelligence to better inform decisions about the future and safety of our great Nation. As the President's principal intelligence advisor, I would ensure that all intelligence is collected, analyzed, and reported without bias, prejudice, or political influence. I see the Director of National Intelligence as more than just a leader, a manager, an integrator. The DNI must at all times be an arrow catcher, a problem solver, an obstacle mover for the IC. Addressing issues, resolving conflicts, and putting tools and resources in the right place at the right time. And always, always, the DNI must be the voice to advocate for and defend the interests of the IC and its people. If confirmed as DNI, you have my commitment to deliver timely, accurate, and objective intelligence and to speak truth to power, be that with Congress or within the Administration. Let me be very clear, regardless of what anyone wants our intelligence to reflect, the intelligence I will provide, if confirmed, will not be impacted or altered as a result of outside influence. Above all, my fidelity and loyalty will always be with the Constitution and the rule of law, and my actions as DNI will reflect that commitment. Many of you have asked me what I see as the greatest threats facing our Nation. The reality is that the threat landscape today is diverse, dynamic, and geographically diffuse, more so than ever before. I believe the immediate focus of the IC must be directed to the geopolitical and economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic as well as its origins. The American people deserve answers and, if confirmed, I pledged that the IC will remain laser focused on providing them. We face enduring challenges on other fronts as well. These include China, from the race to 5G to preventing cyber espionage. Russia and its continued efforts to undermine our democracy by interfering in free and fair elections. Iran and its continued pursuit of nuclear capabilities, ballistic missiles, and sponsorship of terrorist groups. North Korea and its continued possession of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. And transnational issues like cybersecurity, safeguarding our supply chains, and of course, preventing terrorist attacks or a resurgence of ISIS. This list is by no means exhaustive. To address the full spectrum of threats and threat actors, the IC must work continuously to earn the trust of the President, the Congress, and the American people. At its core, the DNI position is about leadership. If confirmed, I hope to be a stabilizing force to build trust and break down barriers to information-sharing as warranted in order to sharpen the analytic work of the Intelligence Community. For me, the ODNI remains the office best positioned to lead integration of the Intelligence Community. We can never underestimate the value of truly integrated intelligence operations or analysis, or assume that agencies would do so on their own without strong leadership from above. That said, I believe every government agency must constantly review its operations to ensure it is setting the right priorities, achieving mission objectives, and spending taxpayer dollars effectively and efficiently. If confirmed, I will work with IC leaders to assess what is working well and where we need to make adjustments to make the Community more effective, efficient, and resilient. In closing, to remain the world's premier intelligence enterprise the IC must continue to recruit and retain the best, brightest, and most diverse workforce our Nation has to offer. The men and women of the IC are dedicated civil servants who rarely, if ever, receive the full recognition of their sacrifice to country and dedication to the mission of keeping Americans safe, secure, and free. As DNI, there will be no greater champion of their hard work and dedication to this country than me. I'm honored by the opportunity to be able to be here with you today, and I thank you for your consideration of my nomination during these difficult times. I look forward to answering your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Ratcliffe follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Burr. Congressman, thank you for those remarks. We'll go into the first block of time consumed by the Chair, the Vice Chair, Senator Risch, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Rubio. Members will have up to five minutes. I'll try to bank some time. Congressman Ratcliffe, several questions. When you're confirmed to be DNI, you'll be walking into an organization that's been led for quite some time by acting officials. It applies to the position for which you've been nominated, but also more recently to the Inspector General's Office. Independence and ability to speak truth to power are critical in both offices. Can you speak to your views of the importance of the Intelligence Community's Inspector General and your expectations of that office as DNI? Congressman Ratcliffe. Senator, thank you for the question. You made reference to acting officials. I have been an acting official for a period of time. I was Acting U.S. Attorney, so I have an appreciation for why Senate-confirmed leadership does make a difference and is important, and I appreciate this Committee considering me in that regard. I also appreciate the comments that you've made as has Vice Chairman Warner about speaking truth to power, and I very much intend to do that if confirmed as DNI. With regard to the Inspector General position, I have a strong record of supporting and defending and working with Inspectors General. For example, I have publicly defended Inspector General Michael Horowitz, even when some of my colleagues have criticized his work, and even when I have disagreed with some of his opinions. But I understand the role and the importance of the Inspectors General because there will always be misconduct, waste, fraud, and abuse when you have government. I am very committed, if confirmed as DNI, to working with the Inspector General to make sure that the Intelligence Community has that type of process in place to ensure that the Intelligence Community is always acting in the best interest of the American people. Chairman Burr. Congressman, over the course of the last three years this Committee has issued four reports about Russia's meddling in our elections, covering Russia's intrusions into State election systems, their use of social media to attempt to influence the election, and most recently confirming the findings of the 2017 Intelligence Community assessment. While being mindful of the fact that we're in an unclassified setting, what are your views on Russia's meddling in our elections? Congressman Ratcliffe. Chairman, my views are that Russia meddled in or interfered with active measures in 2016. They interfered in 2018. They will attempt to do so in 2020. They have a goal of sowing discord, and they have been successful in sowing discord. Fortunately, based on the work, the good work of this Committee, we know that they may have been successful in that regard, but they have not been successful in changing votes or the outcome of any election. The Intelligence Community, as you know, plays a vital role in ensuring that we have safe, secure, and credible elections and that every vote cast by every American is done so properly and counted properly. Chairman Burr. Will you commit to bringing information about threats to the election infrastructure and about foreign governments' efforts to influence elections to Congress so we're fully and currently informed? Congressman Ratcliffe. I will. Chairman Burr. Will you commit to testify at this Committee's annual worldwide threats hearing? Congressman Ratcliffe. I will. Chairman Burr. And last question, I mentioned that over the past three years we have issued four reports. Number five is finished. Number five will go for declassification. Do we have your commitment as DNI that you would expeditiously go through the declassification process? Congressman Ratcliffe. You do. Chairman Burr. Senator Warner. Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You actually took some of my questions. Chairman Burr. My eyesight is good. [Laughter.] Vice Chairman Warner. Mr. Ratcliffe, again, good to see you, and I appreciated our time last Friday. I want to follow up on a couple of the Chairman's questions first. You know, as we discussed, we are at Volume 5, and so far our first four volumes have all been unanimous, or I think maybe with the exception of one dissenting vote. If we get this document to the ODNI, we need your commitment not only that we do it expeditiously, but as much as possible to get that Volume 5 reviewed, redacted, and released ideally before the August recess. Now, I know you've not seen the report yet. All I would ask is aspirationally that you commit to that goal because I think as we discussed, to have a document that could be potentially significant come out in the midst of a Presidential campaign isn't good or fair on either side. So, if I could clarify a little bit recognizing that you've not seen the document--it's 1,000 pages--that you would try to get this cleared prior to August? Congressman Ratcliffe. Vice Chairman, I will again commit that I will work with you to get that declassified as expeditiously as possible. Vice Chairman Warner. Again, our goal is to get it up before August. Again, following up on the Chairman's comments, and we talked about this in person, but I want for the Committee and for the public record, you've indicated that you do believe that Russia interfered. What this Committee's judgment was, particularly in Volume 4, but throughout all volumes, was that not only did Russia interfere, but during their interference in 2016 they had a selected candidate they were for and a selected candidate they were against. For candidate Trump, against candidate Clinton. Have you had a chance to review our documents, and have you reached a similar conclusion--a conclusion that actually reinforces the unanimous conclusion of the Intelligence Community assessment--or can you comment on our Volume 4? Congressman Ratcliffe. Senator, I very much appreciate the bipartisan approach in which this Committee addressed that issue. I did have a chance to review Volume 4, which I know confirms the IC assessment. I have no reason to dispute the Committee's findings. I will say that I have no reason to dispute the Committee that I serve on, HPSCI, the House Intelligence Committee's finding, which is a different perspective with regard to that one issue that you mentioned, about a preference for a candidate. I was not on the Committee at that time. I respect both Committees, but I have not seen the underlying intelligence to tell me why there is a difference of opinion between the two Committees. But I, again, very much appreciate Volume 4 and the work that this Committee put in. And again, I would reiterate: the most important take away from the findings I think of both Committees is that as Russia continues to sow discord, that they have not been successful in changing votes or the outcome of an election, and we need to remain committed to making sure that that does not happen in the future. Vice Chairman Warner. Respectfully, to me, to make that kind of assessment and decide how we're going to prevent Russia's further interference in 2020, if they have a clear preference for one candidate over another, that would just also alter how we counter those efforts. So I really hope that you will spend the time and look at the underlying intelligence. If you find that you reach a conclusion that is different than the unanimous conclusion of the Intelligence Community or the unanimous conclusion of the SSCI here, I would expect a brief on that and pointing out how you found our conclusions or the IC's conclusions were inaccurate. You commit to come back to us if you reach a different conclusion once you've reviewed that underlying intelligence? Congressman Ratcliffe. I will. Vice Chairman Warner. One of the things we also discuss, an area of the Community that seems under assault with the acting ODNI, and that is the Election Security Unit. There are obviously different parts of the IC. The NSA has a group. The CIA has a group. But one of the most important is the group that was stood up by Director Coats. It includes intelligence professionals like Shelby Pierson. They have briefed us on a regular basis. I would like your commitment that since we are literally less than six months away from this year's Presidential elections that you will not take any efforts to dismantle the current leadership of the Election Security Unit or the current capabilities of the Election Security Unit this close to the 2020 election. Congressman Ratcliffe. Senator, I have no intention of making changes in that regard. Vice Chairman Warner. And that that unit, should they have data that is relevant and appropriate for this Committee's responsibility, that that unit will be able to continue on a regular basis to brief this Committee. Congressman Ratcliffe. Senator, I want to make sure that I am clear throughout the day that if confirmed as DNI--and I look at the global threat landscape--I mentioned, the global pandemic, and the IC role with respect to that--but the other immediate concern is safe, secure, credible elections and I will do everything and make it my highest priority if confirmed to do everything possible that we have those safe, secure, credible elections in 2020. Vice Chairman Warner. But it is important, again, that that group who has briefed this Committee on a regular basis continues to have that ability to brief. And again, echoing what the Chairman has said, and--I don't know whether our clocks are running. Chairman Burr. They are not running. Vice Chairman Warner. Well, you will give me a high sign? Chairman Burr. You're good. Vice Chairman Warner. Let me ask my last question then. Should you be confirmed, we are already past the due date on when we would have the traditional worldwide threat hearing. You have committed to the Chairman that you would hold that hearing. My hope would be that that commitment would take place within 60 days of you being confirmed. Congressman Ratcliffe. Senator, I will make a commitment to--I look forward, if confirmed, to appearing as a DNI in a worldwide threats hearing. I don't want to make a commitment in terms of time that I don't know what I am promising exactly. What I will make the commitment is that if confirmed I agree that it is important and I will work to make that happen as expeditiously as possible. Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. Senator Risch. Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressman Ratcliffe has been incredibly generous with his time with me. I have had an opportunity to spend some time with him. I have all of the questions that I need answered from him already. Indeed, most of them aren't available for discussion in an open setting like this. But in the interest of keeping you on time and on schedule, I am going to yield back my time since I do have answers to my questions. So, thank you. Chairman Burr. I thank you, Senator Risch. With that, Senator Feinstein. Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Congressman, welcome. Congressman Ratcliffe. Thank you. Senator Feinstein. I would like to ask you a couple of questions about whistleblowers if I might. This Committee has adhered to a tradition of protecting whistleblowers. However, it is my understanding that your participation in President Trump's campaign to punish and discredit one IC whistleblower suggests you do not align yourself with this bipartisan approach. Let me give you an example. During a December 11 hearing of the House Committee on the Judiciary, you claimed without any evidence that the whistleblower got caught making a false statement. On December 12 you tweeted that the whistleblower didn't tell the truth both verbally and in writing. You also attacked HPSCI staff for providing guidance to potential whistleblowers on how to lawfully make a disclosure. Here's the question: if you are confirmed do you believe that your past remarks concerning the Ukraine whistleblower will discourage IC whistleblowers from exercising their rights consistent with the law to make protected disclosures? Congressman Ratcliffe. Senator, thanks for the question. I want to make it very clear. If confirmed as DNI, every whistleblower past, present, and future will enjoy every protection under the law. I don't want to relitigate old issues of what happened during the impeachment inquiry. My issue was not with the whistleblower. My issue was with what I perceived as a lack of due process in the House process. Again, I don't want to relitigate the issue, so I will leave it at that, but every whistleblower can expect full protection under the law. Whistleblowers are so important. A whistleblower doctor in China is one of the reasons we got an earlier warning, so I will make that commitment to you, Senator. Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. On the evening of April 3, President Trump announced that he was firing Mr. Atkinson because he had sought to transmit to Congress a credible whistleblower complaint of urgent concern, one that was required by law to be transmitted to Congress. Do you share the belief of Members of this Committee and the Senate that Mr. Atkinson was improperly fired, despite the fact, as Acting Director Maguire said, he did everything by the book and followed the law? Congressman Ratcliffe. Well, Senator, I appreciate the question, and I think before you entered the room I talked about my history and strong support of working with Inspectors General. I talked about Inspector General Horowitz who is someone I went to when I thought that there was a problem with the misuse of intelligence authorities and very much appreciated his approach and work, and some of the concerns that I raised were presented in his findings and his report. With respect to Inspector General Atkinson and the situation that you described, I don't have enough information to answer your question and if I can explain why. I will tell you that my dealings with Inspector General Atkinson, I had no issues. I think he did what he thought was right. I think he did think that he was following the law. The flip side to that is that the legal opinion within the ODNI from the General Counsel and from the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel--my reading of it is that their determination was that he may have exceeded his authority because the investigation involved issues that were not intelligence activities or Intelligence Community employees. That is a legal question that I don't know the answer to. Again, I very much want to reiterate that, if confirmed, how important Inspectors General are in government and my strong history of working with them. And I understand, although he's in an acting capacity, that Inspector General Tom Monheim is in that role. I don't know him but he's a 30-year veteran, very well respected, so I hope to have the opportunity to work with him. Senator Feinstein. Thank you. I appreciate that answer. If confirmed, do you commit to directing all IC agencies to cooperate fully with Congressional oversight requests regarding COVID-19, and to promptly produce for the full membership and staff of the Congressional Intelligence Committees all intelligence requested by Congress regarding COVID-19? Congressman Ratcliffe. Senator, thanks for the question. Senator Feinstein. And that is meant to be a broad question. Congressman Ratcliffe. It is and I appreciate the question. In my opening remarks, and then I think reiterating in one of my responses, that the immediate concern that I have is getting answers from the American people through the Intelligence Community if confirmed. If confirmed the Intelligence Community will be laser focused on getting all of the answers that we can regarding how this happened, when this happened. And I commit to providing with as much transparency to you as the law will allow and with due regard for sources and methods--that everything be provided as quickly as possible. Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Just a couple of questions quickly about hard targets. In your view, is the IC doing enough to collect against hard targets like North Korea? Congressman Ratcliffe. Senator, as you know the challenge with North Korea is visibility. And I think that my impression from the outside, like you as a Member of an Oversight Committee of Intelligence, is that we have very good collection. I'm only caveating it because, if confirmed as DNI, I may have a different viewpoint or more information to look at. I would make it a priority, you know. I think collection, obviously, and analysis of our intelligence is what makes this the greatest intelligence enterprise in the world. And I will commit that if we are not doing enough, Senator, I will make it a high priority to improve any standards that we may need to employ. Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressman Ratcliffe. Thank you. Chairman Burr. Senator Rubio. Senator Rubio. Thank you. Congratulations on your nomination. I think that's you. People are watching on television. They can't see how far away we are. We've gotten to know each other a little bit over the years, not in the setting of intelligence, but through mutual friends. So I just kind of want to ask you a very simple and straightforward question. You have an accomplished career. You are, by electoral standards, in a seat that would be considered by the ``Cook Report'' as a safe District. You seem to be enjoying your work. Why are you doing this? And I don't mean that in a negative way. I mean, obviously you've exposed yourself to criticism, and the climate today in politics is pretty intense. I think the most fundamental part of my question is why is this a job that you are willing to step forward and do at this time? Congressman Ratcliffe. Senator, I appreciate the question. I appreciate the time that we've had to get to know each other when you've come over to the lower House to visit with us. First of all, I think any time the President asks you to do something for your country, you ought to consider if there's a way for you to salute smartly and say yes. But beyond that, you have to want this job. And for the same reason I in my opening talked about leaving successful law practice to make a fraction of that to be a Federal prosecutor--the mission is too important. And what the Intelligence Community means, how it has positioned the United States as the world's superpower, and I think everyone knows that the relationship between the Intelligence Community, Congress, the President, and across the board right now is something that's at issue. We've got intelligence authorities and their uses being questioned. I realize it's sort of a difficult time, but DNI, again, the core responsibility is leadership and it's easy to raise your hand when things are going perfectly. It's harder to raise your hand when they're not. And the mission is too important, keeping Americans safe, and the opportunity to lead is something that I want to do. And I guess I will say this, it's been the privilege of my life to serve as a Member of Congress. But the best job I ever had was to be the United States Attorney. What I loved about it was it was an apolitical position. I stood up always to represent the United States of America. Never one party or another. And I very, very much view that as this role for the DNI. I look forward to treating every Member--Republican and Democrat--exactly the same way, and frankly, being out of politics. Senator Rubio. That's an important question, because I've heard some of the skepticism that's been raised is about experience and the experience needed to lead this intelligence enterprise. And it's my view you actually have a pretty extensive experience, both on the Committee and in the House, Homeland Security and Intelligence and also on Judiciary. And then your work, as I said, as a U.S. Attorney. What is it, and what you have done, during your career that you believe prepares you best for the role you now have of overseeing all of these different pillars of our intelligence capabilities? Congressman Ratcliffe. Well, I think, as was mentioned earlier, I've now seen intelligence from three different vantage points: as an end-user and a developer, as a consumer of intelligence, and as an overseer of intelligence. And as far as experience, I started handling national security issues back in 2005, and that included intelligence authorities. My first exposure with FISA was 2005. And in trying to respond to this Committee, we found that in at least one instance, the authorities that I used remain, or the matters that I worked on, remain classified. So from an experience standpoint, as far back as 2005, I've been using those authorities. But I think the role of U.S. Attorney in particular, and my time as Chief of Antiterrorism for four years is particularly well-suited and analogous to the DNI. So as U.S. Attorney, I was running a federated enterprise working across Federal agencies, integrating, coordinating, sharing information, and doing so in an apolitical way. And that's very much what the Director of National Intelligence does. Integrates and coordinates across all 17 intelligence agencies, making the Community better so that it can make Members of Congress, the President, and our policymakers better informed on national security decisions. My time in Congress as well, the committees that I've been on: legislating, creating national security laws. I think I've got a broad, deep, and more than qualified level of experience when we talk about national security issues. And I also think I've got good judgment because I've identified when there are problems with the use of intelligence authorities. And I've spoken truth to power when I've seen it misused. Senator Rubio. I enthusiastically support your nomination and I look forward to voting for you on the Committee and again on the floor. Thank you. Chairman Burr. If any Member currently has one additional question, I'll be happy to entertain them. Senator Feinstein. If you got a quick one. Senator Feinstein. I could ask one question. It's something that I have followed--tried to cure. I've been very concerned by the growth of contractors over the last 20-plus years in the agencies. And when I was Chairman of the Committee, we made a big push to ensure that all inherently government functions of the IC were performed by government employees and not contractors. It's my understanding that that effort continues today and we made substantial progress over the two decades in this. What is your view on the appropriate use of contractors in the Intelligence Community? Congressman Ratcliffe. Senator, I'm not saying this because you are considering me for the position as the nominee, but I agree with every word you just said with regard to contractor use and how it should be limited and where government employees should be doing government functions. I know there's always a look in terms of ratios and the percentages. I'm not a one- size-fits-all person. If confirmed as DNI, I'll look at where things stand right now. But the concern that you have, the sentiment that you expressed--let me just reiterate that I agree with you completely and look forward to working with you on this issue if confirmed. Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. With that, the first block of time has expired. The Chair would move to the second block of time and go somewhat out of order because Senator Wyden is not here. I will turn to Senator Collins for any questions. Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressman, I appreciated the opportunity to talk with you last week. As one of the authors, along with former Senator Joe Lieberman, of the 2004 law that created the Director of National Intelligence position, I have a special interest in making sure that the leader of the Intelligence Community fulfills what we envision. In that regard, I appreciated the opportunity to review your background with you in depth to make sure that you met the statutory standard of having extensive national security expertise. So today, I want to turn to a different issue. As some Members have already said today, the ability to speak truth to power is essential to serving as a successful DNI. Would you communicate the Intelligence Community's analytic views to the President, even if you knew that he would strongly disagree with them? Congressman Ratcliffe. Of course. Senator Collins. Would you be willing to communicate the IC's analytic conclusions to the President, even if you believed it would place your job in jeopardy? Congressman Ratcliffe. Of course. Senator Collins. Assuming your confirmation, when you participate in the next open worldwide threats hearing and you are asked to provide an unclassified IC assessment that you know that the President vehemently disagrees with, what would you do? Congressman Ratcliffe. Senator, whether you're talking about the President, whether you're talking about Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, anyone's views on what they want the intelligence to be will never impact the intelligence that I deliver. Never. Senator Collins. Thank you for that strong response. I'm nevertheless going to ask you one more that has to do with the internal operations of the Intelligence Community. What would you do if the Intelligence Community was prepared to publish a President's Daily Brief that directly contradicted the White House's conclusions on an important issue like North Korea? Would you still allow the PDB to be published? And the reason I ask this question is there are some very experienced analysts within the IC that are concerned that you might attempt to shade the conclusions in order to avoid alienating the President in presenting his daily brief. Congressman Ratcliffe. Senator, I think before you were in the room I reiterated multiple times that I won't shade intelligence for anyone, whether we're talking about the President, Members of Congress, any policymakers. As far as published on the President's Daily Brief, I guess I'm not sure about the word ``publish''--when you say--how you mean that. Senator Collins. I should have used the word `ìssued.'' Congressman Ratcliffe. So, absolutely. I just want to make sure because the President's Daily Brief is the President's Daily Brief. Senator Collins. Right. Congressman Ratcliffe. But to the larger question, again, just if I can reiterate as clearly as possible. If confirmed as DNI, one of the things that I've made clear to everyone is that I will deliver the unvarnished truth. It won't be shaded for anyone. What anyone wants the intelligence to reflect won't impact the intelligence that I deliver. Senator Collins. And finally, and I asked this question to you on the telephone, but I want to ask it to you for the record. The President has said that the IC has run amok and needs to be reined in. Do you share the President's view? Congressman Ratcliffe. I think what we talked about, Senator, about a number of things there--and I'm sure going to get a lot of questions about what the President says or what the President thinks. And again, I don't mean to be repetitive, but none of those things, regardless of what he says or how he says them, or how Nancy Pelosi or Mitch McConnell or anyone says about the intelligence or the Intelligence Community--will not impact the intelligence that I deliver. Senator Collins. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. Senator Wyden. Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressman, welcome. Congressman Ratcliffe. Thank you. Senator Wyden. Let me begin this way. Donald Trump said last year: the Constitution says, and I quote here, I can do whatever I want as President. The Attorney General has said the President doesn't have to follow the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and can conduct surveillance without a warrant. Those two statements are a direct threat to the Constitutional rights of Americans, and it makes the Director of National Intelligence a last line of defense for our democracy. Do you believe the President can spy on Americans outside the law? Congressman Ratcliffe. Senator, I don't think anyone can spy on Americans outside the law. Senator Wyden. So would you refuse to authorize the Intelligence Community to conduct warrantless surveillance? Congressman Ratcliffe. Senator, when you talk about---- Senator Wyden. You answered no, so I'm asking you. Congressman Ratcliffe. Just to be real clear, my answer is consistent. Whatever the law is is what I will do if confirmed as DNI within my authorities. I will act within my authorities. But most importantly I will be guided by the Constitution and the rule of law. So whatever authorities allow the Intelligence Community to do, all of our actions, if I'm the Director, will be in compliance with what the law is as---- Senator Wyden. My time is short. Congressman Ratcliffe. I'm sorry. Senator Wyden. Congressman, the point is you really didn't say no in answer to my question. You said there may be circumstances. I happen to think that answer--that there may be circumstances when the President can spy on Americans outside the law--is an exceptionally dangerous bit of testimony. I'm going to move on. Congressman Ratcliffe. Maybe can I just--because the record's clear. Maybe I misspoke then. I want to be real clear that no one can spy or surveil outside the law, and if confirmed as DNI, one of my highest priorities will always be to make sure that the Intelligence Community is acting in accordance with the law. So I want to make that very clear, Senator. Senator Wyden. Again, you're qualifying this based on circumstances, and that's what I think is dangerous. Now, I also want to get into your views on whistleblowers. Now, it is open season on whistleblowers right now in Washington, D.C., and you gave a pleasant-sounding statement about whistleblowers. So I want to be very specific. If the Inspector General determines that a whistleblower complaint should be sent to Congress, are you going to send it over to the Department of Justice or the White House to get their permission? Congressman Ratcliffe. Any whistleblower complaint, if I'm confirmed as DNI, is going to be handled in accordance with the law. I don't know how it can be more clear than that. Senator Wyden. I think you could say unequivocally no, because that's what I think is important. And what I want to know is whether there is some kind of veto power over whether Congress hears from whistleblowers. And as with the previous question with respect to spying, you want to have it both ways. You want to try to portray yourself as a defender of the Constitution, and then you water it down with the specifics. Should the identity of whistleblowers ever, under any circumstances, be disclosed without their consent? Congressman Ratcliffe. No, whistleblowers are entitled to anonymity. Senator Wyden. So what is your opinion of those who would call for the outing of IC whistleblowers? Congressman Ratcliffe. That whistleblowers are entitled to anonymity under the law. And if someone---- Senator Wyden. Are you distinguishing between lawful whistleblowers, or lawful whistleblower complaints? Again, I'm trying to get a sense of what you actually believe. Congressman Ratcliffe. If someone is a whistleblower under the law, they are entitled to the protections of the whistleblower statute under the law, and before you were in the room---- Senator Wyden. I heard the answer. One last question. I want to get it in. You, in your written answers, seem to think internet voting was okay. You gave a very qualified answer. I happen to think it's the equivalent of putting our ballots on the streets of Moscow. So could you tell me why you think internet voting is okay, given all the threats that we have seen to our democracy? Congressman Ratcliffe. I don't recall the response or how I responded, Senator, but it seems to me that that is a policy issue that if confirmed as DNI I would not be in the role of making policy. It wouldn't matter. Whatever the law is regarding---- Senator Wyden. We expect you to be a leader on election security, and if you support the kind of snake oil salesmen we've got in this country that are selling some of these online voting operations, you're going to put at risk our special system of government. I think my time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Congressman Ratcliffe. Thank you, Senator. Chairman Burr. Senator Heinrich. Senator Heinrich. Welcome, Congressman. In your statement for the record you wrote that, quote, the President and I have a good rapport. So if confirmed as DNI, you said: you have my commitment to deliver accurate and objective intelligence and speak truth to power. Dan Coats, Sue Gordon, Joe Maguire, other dedicated IC professionals had a good rapport with the President as well, until they didn't. Can you give me some specific examples of when you've had to speak truth to power, in particular, if it's involved the President of the United States? Congressman Ratcliffe. Sure. Senator, I appreciate the question. The reason I said a good rapport is--I think trust is important. I think it's one of the things that is important and can strengthen the relationship between all parties. Intelligence Community, Congress, the President. One of the reasons that I indicated before you were in the room that I wanted this job was because it is apolitical, and I have held apolitical positions before. As U.S. Attorney, that is an apolitical role and, in those instances, I frequently had to speak truth to power from the standpoint of there were many occasions where people wanted me to exercise my discretion in a way that considered something other than what the law was, and I never did. Senator Heinrich. Can you give a particular example? Congressman Ratcliffe. Oh, so-and-so is, you know--I don't want to give examples that would give away a specific case--but if someone was, for instance, a good Republican or a good Democrat and held a position and maybe deserved some special consideration. Those kinds of things. Senator Heinrich. Gotcha. Congressman Ratcliffe. And in addition---- Senator Heinrich. I think that's adequate. I just want to reclaim my time here for a moment. Last year, the President defended nominating you for the DNI position stating that: You would do an incredible job and we need somebody like that in there. We need somebody strong that can reign it in, because as I think you've all learned, the intelligence agencies have run amok. What do you think he meant by that? Congressman Ratcliffe. I don't know. I saw the comment, Senator. I've made clear that, again, first of all, I've made clear, as I just said to you, one of the reasons that I want this position. I've made that without betraying any conversations, but that sentiment I have expressed to the President. And he understands that I'm looking forward to this position because it's apolitical and that the intelligence that I will deliver is unvarnished or shaded in any respect. Senator Heinrich. Do you think that the Intelligence Community or even a single agency has run amok? Congressman Ratcliffe. I have never said that. Senator Heinrich. President Trump has repeatedly and without any basis, in my view, accused the hard-working men and women of the IC of working to undermine his Administration. Do you believe that there is a, quote unquote, deep state in the IC? Congressman Ratcliffe. I don't know what that means. Senator Collins and I, I think, talked about that in our call. I don't know what that is. Senator Heinrich. So would you agree that it would be inappropriate and, in some contexts, illegal to remove or reassign, to screen or otherwise discriminate against career IC personnel for political reasons? Congressman Ratcliffe. Yes. Senator Heinrich. Including on the basis of their work assignments in previous Administrations? Congressman Ratcliffe. Yes. Senator Heinrich. Okay, thank you. The President has publicly stated that he expects loyalty from his appointees, and he publicly withdrew your nomination, appointed another individual, but then formally resubmitted your nomination. That sort of turn of events just raises some unique questions. During your conversations with the President regarding this position, what priorities did he communicate to you that he expected you to pursue on his behalf? And did the word ``loyalty'' ever come up? Congressman Ratcliffe. Senator, a couple points there. I want to be real clear. My loyalty is to the Constitution and the rule of law, and I have made that very clear to everyone, including the President. Senator Heinrich. So you did discuss loyalty? Congressman Ratcliffe. No. I've made clear that if I'm in a position, my loyalty is always going to be to the Constitution and rule of law. Senator Heinrich. So you've made that proactively clear. You weren't asked. Congressman Ratcliffe. Yeah, I made that proactively clear. Senator Heinrich. And you were not asked? Congressman Ratcliffe. And I was not. I absolutely was not asked. And the priorities--one of the priorities--again, I don't want to get into specific conversations--but the sentiment is keeping politics out of the Intelligence Community. It's one of my priorities. And one thing, too, I guess because it's been reported: I withdrew from consideration. I wasn't withdrawn. And so I just wanted the record clear with respect to that. Chairman Burr. Senator Collins, do you have one additional question you'd like to ask? [No audible response.] Senator Wyden, one additional question? Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressman, the Congress passed a law requiring an unclassified report on who was responsible for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. This is a law today, not a bill, it is a law. The DNI, however, has outright refused to comply with this law, denying the public a single shred of information on this topic. Do you agree that the government is bound by this law and is obligated to provide this report, which stipulates in public, in public, who killed Jamal Khashoggi and under what circumstances? Congressman Ratcliffe. Senator, I share your concern. I think I've seen the same information that you have, and I think you're referring to the provisions in the NDAA. And if confirmed as DNI, again, I will ensure that the law is complied with. I realize that the information, I think, in the report, if we are talking about the same thing, is a request for unclassified information. So if confirmed, I want to look myself at the information to make sure that that information has been classified properly. Senator Wyden. But that's not the question. This is a law. This is a law, Congressman. And consistently in every one of the areas that I asked you about with respect to spying, with respect to whistleblowers, now with respect to the law, these are pretty much straightforward yes or no questions. And now you've said you're going to look at what is classified with respect to the late Mr. Khashoggi. We passed a law that resolved it. It is supposed to be made available now. Congressman Ratcliffe. May I respond? Senator Wyden. So, I'll look forward to your adding to the record on it, but I will tell you, you have certainly been briefed with respect to coming to this hearing. But on issue after issue, I've asked pretty straightforward questions and what I have gotten is a kind of let us sort of circle the subject and not answer it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. Senator Heinrich, do you have an additional question? Senator Heinrich. Just one. As you know, Congress has not authorized organizational changes at ODNI. We have not appropriated funds for that purpose, but Acting Director Grenell has been reorganizing ODNI. If confirmed, would you halt that reorganization and would you seek authorization from Congress to reorganize if you found the need to do so? Congressman Ratcliffe. Senator, thanks for the question. If I can just first comment to Senator Wyden's point. I was hoping to make the point that I'm certainly not trying to be evasive, but the position I'm being considered for is the President's principal intelligence advisor, not his legal advisor. And there is legal counsel that I would go to if I were confirmed as DNI. But Senator, I appreciate the question about organizational changes. As you know, I'm not so presumptuous as to know that I'm going to be confirmed, so I haven't considered or talked about any sort of organizational changes. I want to make clear that I expect to have unfettered discretion to make all personnel decisions if confirmed as DNI. And I'll make them in the best interest of the IC to make the IC better. And I will certainly, as with everything, work with this Committee to keep it fully and currently informed. I want everyone to sort of remember that I'm being considered for this position, but I'm one of you right now as a member of an oversight committee. And America functions better when it's elective representatives are fully informed by the Intelligence Community, and I intend to do that. Chairman Burr. And with that, I'm going to bring to a close the second block of Members' questions and we'll move to the third block. Anybody who's asked questions is excused if they'd like to leave. Let me remind Members that when we conclude with this at 12:00, we will reconvene in closed session at 2:00 in the Capital Senate Security Office and we will again be operating with blocks of time. There will be a conference room there for anybody that would like to sit, read intelligence products, listen to what's going on in the closed hearing, and then come in for their question period. With that, I recognize Senator Blunt. Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman. Congressman Ratcliffe, it's good to have you here. This job has gone vacant for too long. It's a critically important job. I'm glad you've been nominated. I've read with great interest the letter in the record that was given to us from former Attorney General Ashcroft. He's been a good friend of mine for a long time. I trust his judgment. I know you worked with him as a U.S. Attorney and also in a law firm that was formed after you both left the Justice Department. And his view of you, which he shared with me personally as well as in this letter, is significant. We have had a chance to visit about your work on the House Intelligence Committee, and I particularly appreciated your last comment about the importance of being fully open and an oversight committee like this one being fully informed. I would say that when we stood up this structure after 9/ 11, I certainly anticipated a much smaller coordinating opportunity rather than the bureaucratic size that we see today. I hope when you have a chance to look at this, that you will look carefully at whether or not the structure as it has grown has really served the principal purpose of coordinating information, or if in some way it may have created yet one more stovepipe of information. I would like you to comment on your views, maybe as a House Intel Member, of just the size of DNI itself and if that size is one that you think is too big, too small, or just right. Congressman Ratcliffe. Senator, thank you for the remarks and association with former Attorney General John Ashcroft who is a great American. But I like you come into this position if confirmed with some preconceived impressions based on discussions I have on the oversight committee. And as Senator Collins leaves the room, I want to make sure you know one of the goals of the DNI, if confirmed, is to make sure that the ODNI and the DNI position are working exactly like Senator Collins and those who stood it up intended it. And so I had a chance to visit with her about it. Like you, I come in with the perspective that you have conversations that maybe indicate that there is too much bureaucracy and there is too much redundancy. Some redundancy is good, but if there are 17 agencies they don't need to be doing the same thing 17 times or purchasing the same things. And so it will be one of my immediate priorities to assess how the ODNI is functioning. Again, the goal of the ODNI is to make the IC better so that the IC can make you better and the President better and policy makers better. And so I do think that I want it to be as efficient as possible, but I will be thoughtful and talk with the heads of the intelligence agencies and elements to find out where they think that some of these things may just be unnecessary redundancies, and address those. Senator Blunt. You know, I think another question to ask, and you don't have to comment on this, but for you to ask, is as this agency has grown, have we let the other agencies not have the attention or the staff they needed as the whole universe of intelligence, U.S. intelligence, has grown. So much of it has grown, at this point--that was to be the central clearinghouse, the agency that coordinated information to be sure nobody was left out, and I would look at that. During the last 19 years we have very much been focused on violent terrorist extremists as the focus of so much of our intelligence efforts. Certainly that threat has not gone away, but it's also equally as certain that great power competition has emerged in ways that we wouldn't have anticipated even a handful of years ago. Talk a little bit about rebalancing the resources you have to continue to keep an eye on the threats that we have so focused on for almost two decades now, but also to rebalance into the great power competition that we see as a significant challenge for us today. Congressman Ratcliffe. Senator, great question and I appreciate you asking, because I have had that conversation with a lot of people about what I view as the greatest threat and the greatest threat actor. And I view China as the greatest threat actor right now. I mean, look at where we are with respect to COVID-19 and the role that China plays, the race to 5G, cyber security issues. All roads lead to China there. And so one of the priorities, highest priorities, that I will have if confirmed as DNI is to make sure--again my background with regard to violent extremists--you know, that is a generational challenge that we will continue to deal with. We may forget about them, but they don't forget about us. But I agree with you in terms of making sure as we look at the national intelligence framework and whether we are committing enough resources to the rising power that is China. When you look at the initiatives that they have--Belt and Road, Made in China 2025, all of the military-civil fusion initiative where they literally want, by law, Chinese companies to collect intelligence. These are all spokes of the same initiative and that is for China to supplant us as the world's superpower and to be able to set standards around the world. And we very clearly don't want an authoritarian regime like the Chinese Communist Party setting standards in the world marketplace. And so I look forward to sitting down with you if confirmed to talk about how ODNI and the other 16 elements are dedicated to the rising threat that is China, which I view as our greatest threat actor. Senator Blunt. Well, certainly Russia is another great threat. Do you want to talk about that for just a second as I conclude my questions? Congressman Ratcliffe. You bet. Different just because you know--Russia, we are concerned with Russia in terms of anytime you have a large nuclear stockpile and they are certainly dedicated to sowing seeds of discord. We are most concerned with them with regard to election interference and making sure we have safe, secure, credible elections because that is what they have been focused on. And they have been, as I said earlier, they have been successful in sowing seeds of discord-- but not, fortunately, in changing votes or the outcome. But between the two to be real clear, I view China as the rising power, whereas Russia has an economy about the same size as the economy of my home State of Texas. So we need to be very concerned with them. Vladimir Putin is a very bad actor and so as DNI if confirmed, I will make sure that we balance appropriately where our resources are going with regard to both of those threats. Senator Blunt. Well thank you, Mr. Ratcliffe. Congressman, I look forward to supporting your nomination both here in the committee and on the floor, and you're working with us as you get this job. Congressman Ratcliffe. Thank you. Chairman Burr. Senator King. Senator King. Good morning, Congressman. First, I would like to start with a series of questions that were from the questionnaire, and I believe they can be answered with yes or no. You did not answer them thusly in the questionnaire, but I think they can be easily answered with yes or no. The first one is question 35. Would you ever ask, encourage, or support an intelligence professional adjusting his or her assessment to avoid criticism from the White House or political appointees? Congressman Ratcliffe. No. Senator King. Would you ever change or remove content in an intelligence assessment for political reasons or at the behest of political leadership? Congressman Ratcliffe. No. Senator King. Question 39: Would you consider an individual's personal political preferences to include loyalty to the President in making a decision to hire, fire, or promote an individual? Congressman Ratcliffe. No. Senator King. And question 39B: Do you commit to exclusively consider professional qualifications in IC personnel decisions without consideration of partisan or political factors? Congressman Ratcliffe. Yes. Senator King. Question C of 39: If you were to receive credible evidence as DNI that an individual was undermining IC objectivity and furthering a political agenda would you immediately remove that individual? Congressman Ratcliffe. Yes. Senator King. And D: Will you or any of your staff impose a political litmus test for IC employees? Congressman Ratcliffe. No. Senator King. Finally, if confirmed would you reassure your workforce that loyalty tests are not allowed with the IC? Congressman Ratcliffe. I would. Senator King. And if such occurs would you commit to informing Congressional Intelligence Committees and immediately stopping such efforts? Congressman Ratcliffe. I would. Senator King. Thank you. Next question. Can you give me a case where you have ever publicly differed with this President? Congressman Ratcliffe. Yes. Senator King. Please do, briefly. Congressman Ratcliffe. An example I can think of most recently was, I think it was October, the President's decision to withdraw troops from Syria. There was a resolution considered regarding that issue that I supported, that I think was referred to by some as a rebuke of the President. I think I'm right on the specifics of that. Senator King. Any other incidents? Congressman Ratcliffe. I'm sure there are. I don't recall any as I'm sitting here. Senator King. In your position as a Member of the House Intelligence Committee or as the nominee for DNI, have you seen any intelligence that finds with high confidence, or any confidence for that matter, that the coronavirus originated in a lab in Wuhan rather than the market? Congressman Ratcliffe. I have not. Senator King. Thank you. You testified---- Congressman Ratcliffe. Can I? Senator King. Go ahead. Congressman Ratcliffe. I only wanted to caveat in the sense of because of the pandemic, I want to say that the last classified briefing I had was some time in--it's been a while since I've had a classified briefing on the coronavirus pandemic. That's the only thing I wanted to caveat. Senator King. That's exactly--that's the answer that I gave this morning myself. Congressman Ratcliffe. Okay. Senator King. And you, like me, you have not seen any intelligence product that indicates? Congressman Ratcliffe. I have not. Senator King. Thank you. You took the oath this morning from the Chair and said you will agree to appear and share information with the Committee. Will you appear before this Committee if the President or an official in the White House tells you not to? Congressman Ratcliffe. Of course. Senator King. And you will bring us--I think there's been some discussion of the worldwide threat hearing. You will---- Congressman Ratcliffe. Again, a caveat. I'll just say---- Senator King. You gave the right answer. If I were you, I wouldn't qualify. Congressman Ratcliffe. Then I'll just leave it alone. But the point was I want to make sure we were talking about to appear in connection with the worldwide threat hearing. Senator King. No, I'm talking about just generally, if this Committee requests your attendance to testify and the White House says do not go, will you honor the oath you took this morning here before this Committee? Congressman Ratcliffe. I will. I will. I'm sorry, I wanted to make sure that I understood the question properly. Senator King. Thank you. The President has stated that he feels that so-called enhanced interrogations such as waterboarding has value and produces valuable results. John McCain said repeatedly that it does not. Who do you agree with, McCain or the President? Congressman Ratcliffe. I follow the law. I'll always follow the law. And so what the law says---- Senator King. Do you believe that waterboarding is a violation of the anti-torture law? Congressman Ratcliffe. My understanding that the law makes clear in several places that torture is illegal, and that would be the finding, I think, in the Army Field Manual. And---- Senator King. So this has nothing to do with your personal opinion. You're simply saying: I'll follow the law, but if the law was changed to allow waterboarding or other forms of torture, would you say that was okay? Congressman Ratcliffe. I think the obligation that I have, Senator, is to follow the law. The Constitution and law of the country is the oath that I take in any role, as DNI, as a Member of Congress. I mean, I don't want to get into policy decisions about which the DNI should not be involved in. I'm a policymaker now, but you're considering me for a role where I would not be making policy or I would follow the law as legislators create laws or as the Supreme Court interprets those laws. Senator King. Thank you. One final question. If you were running for reelection and your campaign manager shared polling data which included crosstabs and detailed information about where your campaign stood with an agent of a foreign government, would you believe that was okay? Congressman Ratcliffe. No. Senator King. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. Senator Cotton. Senator Cotton. Congressman Ratcliffe, congratulations on your nomination. Let me follow up on Senator King's questioning. He'd asked if you had seen any intelligence that the coronavirus originated in one of the two labs in Wuhan, and you said no. Have you seen any intelligence that supports the Chinese Communist Party's claim that it originated in a seafood market in Wuhan? Congressman Ratcliffe. No. Senator Cotton. I presume you're aware that the respected scientific journal ``The Lancet'' published a study of Chinese scientists in January that concluded that in fact it did not originate in the market? Congressman Ratcliffe. I have. Senator Cotton. That more than a third of the original cases had no contact with the market whatsoever, including what they believe to be the first known case as well. Congressman Ratcliffe. I didn't recall that, but if that's what that reflects. Senator Cotton. Are you aware that to the best of our knowledge there's no evidence that bats of any kind, to include the horseshoe bat, was even sold in a food market? Congressman Ratcliffe. That is my understanding. Senator Cotton. So this---- Congressman Ratcliffe. Just to be clear, the point I was trying to make is it's been a while, and through no one's fault, since I've had an updated classified briefing regarding the coronavirus pandemic. Senator Cotton. I understand, and I'm asking these questions not just to speak about the virus, but a more particular matter of intelligence analysis. Everything that we just discussed is not clandestine, collected information. It's not a national security secret. It is publicly reported in a journal like ``The Lancet,'' or in news sources, or so forth. Congressman Ratcliffe. Correct. Senator Cotton. Much of what we know about the virus is the result of publicly reported information, or social media evidence from Wuhan in the early days, and so forth. How critical is the role of that kind of unclassified public information in the analysis that our Intelligence Committee should be conducting? Congressman Ratcliffe. It's I think vitally important. I think one of the things that we're seeing is OSINT, or you know, open source intelligence, is increasingly valuable. And we need to find ways to make sure that we're collecting it and analyzing it. It's a huge--because it's large sets of data that we need to be processing there. And so it's a challenge, but it's a tremendous source of information. And should be utilized by the Intelligence Community going forward. Senator Cotton. I couldn't agree more. I think there's always a bias towards thinking if a secret is not stolen through clandestine means, then it's not valuable information, when all of these pieces of information--whether we're talking about Chinese coronavirus or what Russia is up to in Europe, or Iran's nuclear program--stitched together into a mosaic. And that mosaic usually is a question of circumstantial evidence that you can use common sense to reach the best conclusion--not direct evidence, not conclusive proof. Do you want to respond for the record? Congressman Ratcliffe. I was just going to say, to give you an example of how we might be sort of forward looking on this issue, open source intelligence. If we used open source intelligence tools, we may be able to get earlier warnings around pandemics like this, or viruses like this, as they're beginning. So those are the types of when I was referring to how the Intelligence Community can leverage open source information, that's what I was referring to. Senator Cotton. Now moving on to one of the Director of National Intelligence chief responsibilities, which is setting the priorities for the kind of intelligence our Nation needs to collect, last week the Acting Director of National Intelligence released a statement saying: the Intelligence Community will continue to rigorously examine emerging information and intelligence to determine whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or if it was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan. ``The New York Times'' subsequently reported that senior National Security Council officials urged the Intelligence Community to collect additional information to the extent possible on the origin and cause of the Wuhan pandemic. ``The New York Times'' and other media analysts have somehow suggested that would be inappropriate. Is it inappropriate for the President to set collection priorities on what he thinks is urgent national questions? And for you as DNI to drive those priorities as best you can, given the facts that our intelligence officers are able to gather? Congressman Ratcliffe. That would be appropriate. Senator Cotton. I think that would be completely and totally appropriate. That's exactly what we would expect the Cabinet or the President and his senior national security Cabinet Members to do. One final question I have. I've heard a lot of questions about this on both sides today. You're obviously a politician right now. You've got an R after your name. Some people have raised the question whether you can separate politics from intelligence. We've discussed in the past that this has been done successfully at times. If you look at someone like Leon Panetta who was a pretty partisan guy when he was in the Congress, and then he was Bill Clinton's chief of staff, was an outstanding director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Or if you look at from the other way. Take someone like Bob Gates, lifelong intelligence professional, but since he's left the government it's pretty clear to everyone that he's a Republican, and he's supported Republican candidates for office since he got out of office, even though he served in a Democratic Administration. So I just want to point out even though those are not the DNI job, but the Director of Central Intelligence job, they have a similar need for separating politics from intelligence, and that this is something that can be done and that has been done in the past. And I wanted to see if you have comments about those precedents or how you'll separate politics from intelligence. Congressman Ratcliffe. Well, I appreciate the question, Senator, and earlier I talked about the fact that I very much love representing the people here in Congress, but I held an apolitical job before as U.S. Attorney, one where I represented the United States in neither party and kept both parties out of everything that I did. And so I have done that and done it successfully and been highly regarded for the way that I've approached that. And I enjoyed that and it's one of the reasons that I'm going from a safe District and asking you all to consider me as the nominee. I have every--not just every intention--but every confidence that I will do exactly as I'm telling you, that I will be entirely apolitical as the Director of National Intelligence. Senator Cotton. Thank you very much. Chairman Burr. Senator Harris. Senator Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressman, the U.S. Intelligence Community has an important role in warning our leaders about pandemics like COVID-19, because outbreaks, of course, are not just a public health matter, but also a matter of national security. Based on public statements and reporting alone, do you believe that President Trump has accurately conveyed the severity of this threat of COVID-19 to the American people? Congressman Ratcliffe. Are you saying presently? Senator Harris. We are in the midst of the pandemic presently, correct. Congressman Ratcliffe. So repeat the question because I guess I'm misunderstanding. I'm sorry. Has he accurately reflected the status of the pandemic? Senator Harris. Conveyed the severity of the pandemic, yes. Has he accurately conveyed the severity of COVID-19 to the American people? Congressman Ratcliffe. I believe so. Senator Harris. You do? And according to a April 27, 2020, ``Washington Post'' article, President Trump received upwards of a dozen briefings on COVID-19 from the U.S. intelligence agencies between January and February of this year, during which time he repeatedly denied the severity of the threat. On January 22, he said, quote, we have it totally under control. On February 22, or 26, he insisted that the number of cases would be, quote, close to zero within a number of days. As recently as March 10, the President stated, quote, just stay calm, it will go away. And I'm sure you're familiar with the most recent reports, including today, that we may see as many as 3,000 deaths a day in America because of COVID-19. What would you do, if confirmed, if you believe the President was not taking the warnings from the Intelligence Community seriously? Congressman Ratcliffe. Senator, the intelligence that I would deliver as the Director of National Intelligence--the statements that, you know, the President said this--none of those things will influence the intelligence that I deliver to this Committee and the Committee in the House and Members of Congress. I made the point in my opening, this is one of the highest, one of the first priorities is getting answers to the American people, who deserve answers as you do as a Member of the oversight committee, and I do if I'm still a Member of the oversight committee. And whatever those answers are, Senator, you will get them. They will not be shaded, regardless of what anyone says. I will say this, one of the things that I've learned as a nominee is that members of the Intelligence Community will tell you things that they wouldn't tell you as an overseer of intelligence. And the thing that I want to make clear to all the Members here is the concern of the men and women in the Intelligence Community is they don't want to be leveraged by anyone on either side of the aisle. Senator Harris. Well, with all due respect, Sir, in my experience being on the Intelligence Committee in the United States Senate, the Intelligence Community has been pretty forthright with us when we ask them questions in our role of oversight. So what exactly are you referring to? Congressman Ratcliffe. I'm just saying the perspective as-- the conversations that I've had over the past few months as I have been considered for this, I've had exposure to a lot of Intelligence Community members who have just expressed the sentiment that they want to do their job, they want to deliver the best intelligence, and they don't want to be leveraged from anyone on either side of the aisle. That was the only point. I wasn't directed at you, Senator. At all. Senator Harris. Oh no, I didn't take it that way. Congressman Ratcliffe. Okay. Senator Harris. And how long have you been serving on the House Intelligence Committee? Congressman Ratcliffe. A year and five months, I guess. Senator Harris. Okay, you were appointed to that Committee in 2019, correct? Congressman Ratcliffe. Yes. Senator Harris. Okay. And then, in our fourth report on Russian interference into the 2016 election, this Committee has once again reaffirmed that unanimous consensus of 17 intelligence agencies that Russia interfered with the aim of benefiting then-Candidate Trump's political campaign. However, you and other allies of the President have sought to cast doubt on the consensus conclusions, raising concerns for many of us about your ability to be unbiased, which is a necessity to head the DNI. Will you accept the intelligence provided to you by the men and women of the Intelligence Community, no matter your personal beliefs? And do you accept the findings of the Intelligence Community as it relates to the Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election? Congressman Ratcliffe. So to your first question, I will accept. To the second question about specific to the Russia 2017-- -- Senator Harris. 2016. Congressman Ratcliffe. I'm sorry. 2016. Earlier I made the point that I respect both Committees. I think there's a difference of opinion between the House Intelligence Committee and this Committee in terms of one specific finding. As you pointed out, I was not on the House Intelligence Committee at the time of that. I respect both Committees, but I haven't seen the underlying intelligence with respect to that one finding. Senator Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressman Ratcliffe. Thank you, Senator. Chairman Burr. Senator King, did you have a question? Senator King. Yes. You touched on a point with Senator Cotton that I'd like to follow-up that I think is critically important, and the term I use is conclusion shopping. It's in the nature of any executive to want to be told that the intelligence supports whatever policy direction they want to go in, and this is a constant struggle. It goes back--I don't care whether the President is John F. Kennedy in Vietnam, or Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam or George W. Bush with weapons of mass destruction. This is a human nature problem. The king said: Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest? And a couple of knights went and killed Beckett. The President doesn't have to give an order. That's my concern and that's where it worries me that the President, apparently, has been pressing the Intelligence Community to find what he wants them to find. The question should be: Where did the virus come from, not: don't you think it came from a lab? Do you see the distinction I'm trying to make and why this is so crucial? And it's crucial to the President him or herself, because if they taint the intelligence before it gets to them, they're going to make bad decisions. And we're protecting the Presidents themselves by guarding against this human nature problem. Every Executive wants to hear what they want to hear. Every person that works for that Executive wants to tell the boss what they want to hear. Talk to me about this concern. I think this is a critical issue, particularly with the President who is so strong-willed and has indicated in the past a strong desire to press the Intelligence Community to tell him what he wants to hear. Congressman Ratcliffe. Well, Senator, I appreciate the question and I appreciate the fact that we had a chance to visit about this on the phone. And you've made it clear that this is one aspect of politicization of the Intelligence Community. Sometimes that happens even unintentionally. Senator King. Absolutely. Congressman Ratcliffe. And I share that sentiment or that concern generally, and I've tried to make it clear in our conversations, or our conversation about that, that I agree with the sentiment and how I intend to approach this. I can't comment on things that haven't happened yet. I'm trying to make clear my approach to how I will deal with the issue, and I think I've been very clear that what anyone wants the intelligence to say won't impact the intelligence they get from me that I deliver. I don't know---- Senator King. I would suggest, and I'll close with this, that if you give information to the President that isn't accurate, that isn't unvarnished, that is an act of disloyalty to the President, let alone to the Constitution. Thank you, Congressman. Congressman Ratcliffe. Thank you. Senator King. I appreciate it. Chairman Burr. Thank you. Thank you, Senator King. Before we transition to our last block today, I want to remind Members we'll get together at 2:00 for a closed session in the SVC, Senate Intelligence Committee. I want to turn to myself for one additional question for the Congressman and then I will turn to the Vice Chairman for one additional question before we turn to our last block. Congressman, your experience on the House Intelligence Committee has illustrated the importance of comprehensive oversight. Part of that oversight is being able to dig into the finished intelligence products. For those of us that have been on the Intel Committee prior to 9/11, we understood what processing raw intelligence was really like because we didn't have finished product. Do you commit to the Committee that in the rare instances that the Committee asks for raw intelligence to better understand the analytical conclusions that have been determined, that you will provide that raw intelligence for the Committee? Congressman Ratcliffe. I will as appropriate, and I am caveating just to the standpoint of within my authority and with due regard for the sources and methods at that time. Chairman Burr. Absolutely. Lastly, technological innovation is increasingly happening overseas. The Vice Chairman and I have been incredibly active on the issue of 5G, not because of the jurisdiction of the Committee but because the Intelligence Committee both in the House and the Senate is unique in the fact that we see trends before the policy committees do. And we also see the tech side of it, the technology side of it, in a way that would take other committees of jurisdiction months if not years to get to the same understanding without the degree of clarity that the Intelligence Committee gets it. What is your view on how the Intelligence Community should engage with the private sector on technological innovation? Congressman Ratcliffe. Well, I think it is a great question that ties into what you said--the issue of 5G and where that race stands right now, and where rising powers like China are with regard to the development of 5G global networks. Our ability to ensure that interconnected global networks are safe really will demand, consistent with the 5G strategy, and Senator Cornyn's bill that is now a law with regard to that that we, that we work harder to work with the private sector and take advantage of the technology expertise that we need there to make sure that we are first in all of these places. When we talk about the emerging technologies, Chairman, we have the best intelligence enterprise in the world. To continue for that to be the case we have got to continue to innovate and we have got to be first. We have got to be first and best on cyber issues, on AI, on ultimately on quantum. But 5G is where we are with regard to that issue now, and it is the pathway to being first in those areas. And so again, it is something that is vitally important and that is my perspective. Chairman Burr. Thank you. Vice Chairman. Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you Mr. Chairman and I hope you'll give me the discretion to get in two quick questions. One, the first is, I think a couple of my colleagues have raised some of the questions about the President's comments about his notion that there is somehow a deep state in the Intelligence Community or within law enforcement that is somehow going against his wishes. Have you ever made any statements about a deep state within the Intelligence Community? Or statements that---- Congressman Ratcliffe. Not that I am aware of, Senator. The only reason I'm hesitating is sometimes you are asked questions by reporters about using terms and so it is not a term that I-- -- Vice Chairman Warner. Have you made any statements saying that you believe--or implying that the Intelligence Community is somehow acting---- Congressman Ratcliffe. No. Vice Chairman Warner [continuing]. Inappropriately to target the President? Congressman Ratcliffe. No. No. Vice Chairman Warner. Do you have any view on how the Intelligence Community professionals, what kind of effect that would have on the morale of folks who are hearing these kinds of accusations? Congressman Ratcliffe. The effect on morale? Vice Chairman Warner. The effect if the Commander-in-Chief is making comments somehow impugning the integrity of the Intelligence Community professionals, that they are somehow part of some secret cabal acting against him. Would you agree that has some negative effects upon the Community's esprit de corps and morale? Congressman Ratcliffe. My impression, Senator, from--I can only speak to the conversations that I have had, without getting into specifics. I think the sentiment that I have heard from the President is it's not Intelligence Community writ large, it is specific individuals and pointing to, for instance, misuse of intelligence authorities by certain individuals and-- But again, my focus is I want to look forward, not back. I think that is one of the reasons I want this opportunity. All of this underscores the point that the relationship isn't what it should be across the board between the Intelligence Community, the President, and Congress, and its oversight committees. And again it may be difficult, but I would like the opportunity to strengthen that relationship for the reasons I've talked about earlier. Vice Chairman Warner. The Chairman is giving me my discretion so I won't ask. I want to come back later and ask you a question about NATO. But I would simply point out that it is somewhat unique to me that not only has the President made these comments about kind of the long-term professionals, but literally every person, I think without exception, that this President has appointed for Senate confirmation within the Director of National Intelligence has been fired or removed or pushed out. My conclusion, maybe not shared by all of my colleagues, but because all of those individuals when they took on these positions did what I thought was right, which is being willing to speak truth to power and that cost them their job. If you get this job, I hope you will continue in the vein of the Dan Coatses and the Sue Gordons and the Joe Maguires and Andrew Hallmans who I think honored their commitment even at the cost of their job. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. In an effort to get back on time let me explain to Members, I know some of you came in and you thought: Why do I have to sit down there? For you to sit up here we have to wipe down every seat of the person that was already in it. So to accommodate the time blocks---- Senator Bennet [inaudible]. Chairman Burr. Not exclusively you, Senator Bennet, but this afternoon when we meet at 2 o'clock for the closed session we will be wiping down the seats because we don't have the same accommodations in the Senate Intelligence Committee. With that, I recognize Senator Cornyn. Senator Cornyn. Congressman Ratcliffe, this morning when I said a few words of introduction, I alluded to the unique nature of the job to which you have been nominated. And I think what I would like to hear from you, and forgive me if you have already talked about this extensively, but how do you view the transition from the adversarial process either as a prosecutor or as a Member of Congress battling over public policy issues or maybe conducting vigorous oversight into the role of the Federal Government? How do you make that transition to become this head of the Intelligence Community and be willing and able to provide unvarnished intelligence to policymakers? Congressman Ratcliffe. Senator, I would say I view it as a welcome transition, hopefully. Again, I have loved serving the people of my District and serving in Congress. But again, respectfully, when I was at the Department of Justice there is something about representing the United States, standing up to represent the United States, where you have the ability to say politics will play no part. I won't let party allegiance play any factor in the work that I do, is very analogous to this position and it is one that I very much look forward to. The mission is too important. I look at the threats that we are facing around the world and what is happening and what we are living in right now with this pandemic. And we will only continue to be the world's superpower if we have the best intelligence enterprise, and it has to be one that's apolitical. It has to be one that gives the unvarnished truth, as Senator King has said repeatedly, without shading and without consideration for what anyone wants that intelligence to say. And I've been in that role, and that's what I would offer in terms of reassurance, in terms of my time at the Justice Department and leading, again, a federated enterprise, not just to the scope and size of the Intelligence Community, but a U.S. Attorney's office is significant. To put it in perspective there's 435 Congressional Districts the country is divided up into. There's 100 United States Senators. There's only 93 Federal Districts. And in my case, it was 35,000 square miles, more than 3 million residents within that, and so operating, and coordinating, and integrating in pursuit of national security priorities like the prevention of terrorism I think is good training for this. But it's something that I found, again, that I enjoyed doing, and I look forward to the transition on a larger scale at a time that I think our country really needs it, and again, I think that I'm well-qualified to do. Senator Cornyn. Congressman Ratcliffe, my friend the Ranking Member Senator Warner frames this as speaking truth to power, but let me frame it a little differently. Do you have any problem in telling the President the truth about what our Intelligence Community has produced to allow him to then make the best decisions in consultation with his team? Congressman Ratcliffe. Respectfully, Senator, I don't have a problem telling anyone--the President, Members of this Committee, anyone that would be a consumer of intelligence and entitled to see it, whether as an overseer--in whatever respect. The intelligence has to speak to exactly what the men and women who are doing the collection and analysis of it--we are all better served with the best, unvarnished intelligence, and that is truth to power, and I look forward to doing that to anyone. Senator Cornyn. And what's the danger if you somehow shaded or nuanced the information for the policymakers, including the President of the United States? Congressman Ratcliffe. Everything that we, the Intelligence Community does, is designed to inform all policy makers, the President, the National Security Council, our military leaders, and Members of Congress to have the best information to make our national security decisions. So to give anything other than the best information is to jeopardize our national security. It's something I just won't do. Senator Cornyn. In closing, I was glad to see our mutual friend, Congressman Will Hurd, write an Op-Ed piece supporting your nomination. Will, as we both know, served in the CIA before he came to Congress. He's steeped in these issues like very few are, and I was glad to see that vote of confidence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressman Ratcliffe. Thank you again, Senator, for your remarks this morning. Chairman Burr. Senator Bennet. Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate the opportunity to ask these questions. Congressman, it's nice to see you. Congressman Ratcliffe. Good to see you, Senator. Senator Bennet. Senator Cornyn this morning read a really great letter from Attorney General Ashcroft, and you should be very pleased about how he commended you. In the letter, he said--this is Attorney General Ashcroft-- he said: Integrity is the indispensable imperative for intelligence, the best friend of national security. And national security is the singular portfolio most allergic to the infection and devaluation that results from inaccuracy and distortion. For high-quality decision-making, sound intelligence must never be contaminated by personal bias or political predisposition. Do you agree with that statement? Congressman Ratcliffe. I do. Senator Bennet. Why, to follow up on Senator Cornyn's question, why is it so important that sound intelligence, above all else really, must never be contaminated by personal bias or political predisposition? Congressman Ratcliffe. Simply because it would jeopardize national security decisions. Senator Bennet. Can you elaborate? Congressman Ratcliffe. Well, again, what the Intelligence Community does--the best men and women in the world doing the best collection, the best analysis--it has to be delivered accurately so that you as a legislator, the President, as the Commander-in-Chief, our military leaders advising him--have the best information. And if it's shaded, or colored, or changed or impacted at all, that means you don't have the best information, which means you're not making the best decisions. Senator Bennet. I agree with that. And so do you think that in a situation where you have leadership in this government that seems biased or predisposed to an outcome that's not supported by the intelligence, and that there is risk to the jobs of people in the Intelligence Community who could report that accurately, like let's say in North Korea, if somebody delivers bad intelligence, somebody that the Great Leader wouldn't want to hear, and bad things happen to a person there, can you see how that would distort potentially the work of the Intelligence Community? Congressman Ratcliffe. Yes. Senator Bennet. And will you protect the Intelligence Committee at all costs? Congressman Ratcliffe. Yes. Senator Bennet. Including at the cost of your own job? Congressman Ratcliffe. Yes. Senator Bennet. I appreciate that, because I think your job, if you're confirmed, is to enable the Intelligence Community professionals to do their job, which all of us need them to do, not just because we're on this Committee but because we're American citizens---- Congressman Ratcliffe. I agree. Senator Bennet [continuing]. Patriots, and we love this country. Congressman Ratcliffe. I agree. Senator Bennet. And they need to be able to do it without fear of political reprisal. And we face a situation now--you're inheriting an agency where the President fired the IC Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, because he didn't like the way the IG did his job. How are we going to undo that? How specifically are you going to deal with the impact of the Inspector General being fired because the President disagreed with the way he did his job? He did his job according to the law. Do you think there's collateral damage as a result of an action taken like that? Congressman Ratcliffe. Well, I don't know until I'm confirmed what the reaction is, you know, within the Community. Senator Bennet. What would you suspect it would be? Congressman Ratcliffe. Well, I honestly don't know what the interpretation--to your point about the Inspector General, again I don't want to relitigate issues, but---- Senator Bennet. I don't think this is relitigating issues. This is what the President of the United States is projecting to the men and women of our intelligence agencies. In nominating you, Congressman, the President said the intelligence agencies have run amok. That was in the context of nominating you. That's this hearing. Do you think the intelligence agencies of the United States have run amok? Congressman Ratcliffe. No. Senator Bennet. Do you think that there is an effect on morale among the men and women of our intelligence agencies when the President of the United States says they've run amok? Congressman Ratcliffe. Again, I think I tried to address this earlier. Senator Bennet. I heard the answers earlier, by the way. Congressman Ratcliffe. Okay. Senator Bennet. But I'm asking it again because I don't think you addressed it. Do you think there's an effect on morale when the President of the United States describes the Intelligence Community as having run amok and that's why he's nominating you? Congressman Ratcliffe. I hope not. Senator Bennet. Oh, you hope there isn't an effect? Congressman Ratcliffe. Right. Senator Bennet. Do you think the intelligence agencies of the United States are running amok? Congressman Ratcliffe. No. Senator Bennet. Do you think it will be your responsibility if you're confirmed for this position when you disagree with the President on something so important as whether our intelligence agencies have run amok that you will say so on the public record? Congressman Ratcliffe. As I have said, I think many times, Senator, it doesn't matter what the President says or what any--Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell---- Senator Bennet. I heard you say that before. I think there is no equivalent between the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of this country, the Commander-in-Chief, saying what he says and with all respect to the people around this table, what a politician in Congress might say, although I will say I think there are constructive ways of serving in Congress and unconstructive ways. This idea that we're accepting that people are just going to be bitter partisans because they're in Congress--I actually don't accept that. I think it reflects poorly on us when we do. But I still would like to have an answer to the question. If you disagree--if the President said tomorrow that the intelligence agencies in this country have run amok, would you publicly disagree with what the President said? Congressman Ratcliffe. Nothing the President says will impact the delivery of the intelligence I give. Senator Bennet. That's not the question that I asked. Congressman Ratcliffe. Would I-- Senator Bennet. If the President says this afternoon that the intelligence agencies in this country are running amok, will you publicly disagree with the President? Congressman Ratcliffe. I will give the President my best intelligence unvarnished. I don't know if I'm not--we're not-- I'm not understanding how I'm not answering---- Senator Bennet. I think that that would meet the Ashcroft test. I think that if you couldn't do it without--without--if you couldn't bring yourself to say that the men and women of the intelligence agencies communities are not running amok, I don't think you meet the test. Congressman Ratcliffe. I'm trying--just to be clear, Senator, I don't think that the men and women of the Intelligence Community are running amok. Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. Thank you. I would note that he said earlier to your question that he did not believe they were running amok. I think we were just having a---- Congressman Ratcliffe. I did. Chairman Burr. We're just having a disconnection on what-- -- Congressman Ratcliffe. And I'm sorry if I misunderstood. Chairman Burr [continuing]. What the thought was. Senator Sasse. Senator Bennet. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman. Congressman Ratcliffe. Thank you. Senator Sasse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressman, congratulations on your nomination. Senator Cornyn underscored the Will Hurd op-ed. I think it's very important and I hope that folks here read that as well. Congressman Hurd is obviously widely respected on these issues. Thanks for the time that we had over the last few weeks. In the classified section, I'm going to ask you some more questions to press you on whether you think the ODNI works right now, whether it's a functioning bureaucratic layer or whether it's an encumbrance. Whether the post 9/11 reasons that it was created are actually being advanced. But one of the specific pieces of that then we'll talk about in the classified setting that I wanted to unpack more fully here is--you know it's my view there's no more pressing national security threat the United States faces than the next decade of the tech race with China. And all 17 of our intelligence agencies, but especially the CIA and the NSA, are getting that message and they're ramping it up. But we've been talking about a pivot to China for 10 or 15 years in this country and I think the agencies are still slow to devote sufficient mind share, money, personnel, etcetera, to the China threat. So in this public setting, a rare thing for the Intelligence Community, where you get to speak directly to the American people, can you explain what that Made in China 2025 initiative is? And why China is pursuing it and whether the American people should be concerned? Congressman Ratcliffe. Sure. Thanks for the question, Senator. And you and I have talked, and earlier I identified China as the greatest threat that we face--the greatest threat actor that we face moving forward--for the exact reasons that you talked about. Made in China 2025 is one of many initiatives that the Chinese government--the Belt and Road initiative, the military-civil fusion initiative, all initiatives of that same--all spokes of the same initiative for China to supplant us as the global power in all respects. And so, it's why, I think, you and I agree that China is the rising threat and why we have to look at the national intelligence policy framework and our budgeting and our resource allocation to make sure that we are dedicating towards all of these different initiatives where an authoritarian regime wants to set the marketplace rules as they do with Made in China 2025. Where they want Chinese companies dominating industry across 10 different sectors, just as they want with the military fusion. Chinese companies gathering and collecting intelligence and sharing it with the Chinese Communist Party. Whereas, with Belt and Road, they want to dominate all of the hubs for trade routes and telecommunications. All of these things are China trying to essentially supplant free marketplace standards and values like liberty and free speech and all the things that we have, with authoritarian values that are reflected in some of the things that are happening in this COVID-19 pandemic. Senator Sasse. Before we get to the way they're using coronavirus and COVID, just stay for a second stay for a second at the Chinese Communist Party's use of tech and maybe emphasize AI in particular. How do the Communists who lead China--and to be clear, when U.S. businesses pretend that there is a public-private sector distinction in China, they are exaggerating--there is not much of a public-private sector distinction in China. But it's understandable both because U.S. companies want those markets--1.4 billion people and 400 million are middle-class. There are more middle-class people in China than in the U.S. Of our 325 million, only about 250 million are middle class. So there are a lot of consumers in China. It makes that U.S. producers would be interested in having access to those markets. But also, it's important for us to always underscore that our opponent here is not the Chinese people. Our opponent is the communist leadership of China. But what is the Communist Party trying to do with tech and with AI in particular? Congressman Ratcliffe. So, I'll use an example. I'll start with 5G because 5G leads to AI. AI leads to quantum. And to your point about where the Chinese Communist Party stops and starts, it's hard to tell with a company like Huawei. And if Huawei has an obligation to share information, under Chinese law with the Chinese Communist Party, and they are creating global networks and our information is going over those lines, and our allies that we are sharing information with, that's jeopardizing our information, that's jeopardizing our troops. All of these things are basically put at risk with respect to that. And so this is just why you are so correct, Senator, in terms of making sure that we are balanced in terms of where we are investing in terms of the global threat landscape pandemic--5G, AI. I don't want to say all roads lead to China, but a lot of them do. Senator Sasse. What are the technical fields that you are most concerned about them being at or equal to us in terms of their long-term plotting against us? A generation--I think Eric Schmidt, the former executive chairman of Google, regularly talks about a tech generation as being 18-ish months. What technical fields are you most concerned about their near parity or rival with us? Congressman Ratcliffe. Yeah, I mean just in terms of the point, cybersecurity generally tying in. I mentioned 5G, but one of the things that I'm most concerned about is investment towards quantum computing. We have with the NSA, we have the best code makers and breakers in the world. General Nakasone, I think you and I agree, is a national treasure. But if China gets to quantum first, we are in trouble. And so that, for me, was one of the--when we look at investments and looking forward and the challenges that we face, and the fact that China is investing more towards those technologies than the United States presently, we need to rebalance. Senator Sasse. I'm going to give it back to the Chairman here, but I just want to underscore the point you just made. I'm a small-government guy, but we are radically under investing and a lot of the fields that you just mentioned. Quantum. Paul Nakasone is an absolute national treasure, but the team he leads at the NSA, lots of their work is made obsolete if the quantum race is won by China--and we are under- investing in that space. Thanks. I look forward to the classified time this afternoon. Congressman Ratcliffe. Thank you. Chairman Burr. Senator Reed. Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Congressman. Congressman Ratcliffe. Thank you. Senator Reed. In your view, have we made progress in reversing North Korea's nuclear proliferation and nuclear development? Congressman Ratcliffe. I view North Korea as the same danger that they have been. I understand and I appreciate the diplomatic negotiations that are taking place and I hope that that there might be some concessions about their nuclear weapons in exchange for sanctions relief, but I can't address whether or not we made progress with respect to that or not, given the information that I've been privy to at this point. Perhaps if confirmed as DNI and I have a chance to visit with Secretary Pompeo, because I think there's a diplomatic piece here that I don't know--that I can't speak to--that I don't know the answer to. Senator Reed. Changing subject now for Iran, were they in compliance with the JCPOA when the President withdrew? Congressman Ratcliffe. I'm not sure. I might have to--I don't know technically if they were out of compliance at the time. Senator Reed. Well, since that time, do you think their activities have become more malign since the withdrawal by the United States of the JCPOA? Congressman Ratcliffe. I think Iran has become increasingly desperate as a result of the maximum pressure campaign, and I think that that's reflected in the fact that we see more provoking activity from them. You know, when you talk about Iran, you have to really look across--you're talking about Yemen, you're talking about Syria, you're talking about their proxies around--it's a regional issue and they are getting more aggressive everywhere because I think that they are increasingly more desperate. The internal strife that is going on in that regime one of the common ways to deal with the internal conflict that is happening is to try and coalesce around an outside adversary. And the U.S. and our interests in that region provide that. That is how they are trying to maintain control. I will say this, Senator, I think that this is one of the things when I talk about the impacts of a COVID-19 pandemic where in places all around the world, but in the Middle East, where you already have social unrest and a chance for upheaval, those conditions can get sharper where you have what we believe is underreporting in Iran with respect to the impact of COVID-19. Senator Reed. But from your comments, the maximum pressure campaign has made them more hostile, more aggressive, and more disruptive. Congressman Ratcliffe. I think they are more desperate is how I would characterize it, and what they are trying to do from my perspective is to leverage the international community to provoke something that draws it into something that might provide relief from the crippling sanctions that they are under. Senator Reed. Let me change the subject to something that has been discussed several times here, that is election security. I believe, correct me if I am wrong, you would concede that in 2016 the Russians were involved. Congressman Ratcliffe. Yes. Senator Reed. In 2018, the Russians were involved. Congressman Ratcliffe. Yes. Senator Reed. In 2020, this election, they are involved. Congressman Ratcliffe. Yes. Senator Reed. The Senate Intelligence Committee on a bipartisan basis concluded that in 2016 they were in favor of supporting President Trump and in disfavor of Secretary Clinton and taking steps to promote one and to deter the other. Yet in your written response to the Intelligence Committee, you did not publicly commit to notifying the American public when you had critical information of Russian involvement. And I think as a fundamental aspect of democracy, people should know when they go into a voting booth who is doing what and why candidates are being supported by whom. That is something that goes back, I think, to the beginning of this democracy. And yet you would not commit to that public notification. You instead mentioned the need to safeguard the confidentiality interests of the Executive Branch, which is basically to cover the President's position. Is that your position? Congressman Ratcliffe. I am not sure of the question. I have answered, I think, 150 different questions. I want to be real clear about Russia and other countries, but Russia in particular. I agree with the way you have--they interfered 2016, 2018, 2020. They are going to continue to do it. I am for safe, secure, credible elections and will do everything I can as DNI to ensure that they are not successful. So I don't know the question and answer in specific that you are referring to, but if I need to elaborate or clarify---- Senator Reed. Well, I think you should review your written responses because the quote is: Safeguard the confidentiality interests of the Executive Branch will be considered, which sounds a lot like the President comes first and if it doesn't really bother him, then I will let it go. Congressman Ratcliffe. Well that was certainly not my intent, and I will reiterate that again, but I think I made clear throughout---- Senator Reed. So you will publicly commit to disclosing to the American people if the Intelligence Community concurs with high confidence that the Russians are involved? And the Russians are involved in promoting a certain candidate? Congressman Ratcliffe. That is the--if that is the conclusions of the Intelligence Community, if I am confirmed as DNI? Is that your question? Senator Reed. Yes, Sir. Congressman Ratcliffe. Yes. Senator Reed. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. I thank the Members. This brings to a close the public session. Congressman, let me say to you this point is not to solicit an answer, it is to create a thought process as we venture down this road of pandemic. I for one believe that the private sector will look very different when we come out on the other end as companies assess productivity from work at home, the need for high-rise office buildings crammed full of people, the way we interact, I think, will change. And the private sector is very capable of making those assessments and accomplishing that type of change. I would suggest to you that when you are confirmed, now is a great opportunity to begin to think about not just reorganization of the DNI shop, but reorganization of the Intelligence Community reflective of what Senator Sasse said about technology. It is not just about funding technology to be competitive. It is creating a model that actually generates the type of breakthroughs that we know we need for 5G, AI. These Members have heard the Vice Chairman and I talk many times. If this were 20 years ago and we were faced with a 5G issue getting started late, we would be with our Five Eyes partners throwing everything on the research bench--the best and the brightest working together--and we would create something far superior to what Huawei had, and that is how we would win the 5G war. It's not too late. But we have got to begin to think like that throughout the whole of the IC. Just because we have done it one way for 50 years doesn't mean that the future necessarily means that we have got to do it that way. And I think we have got an IC that has changed greatly, but it's leadership that enables change to happen expeditiously. So I hope you will consider that. Congressman Ratcliffe. I will. Chairman Burr. I want to thank you, John, for your time this morning. I want to thank the Members for working under this temporary construct to continue to conduct the Committee's important business. I look forward to advancing your nomination rapidly and to voting in favor of your confirmation in the full Senate. Again, if any Members wish to submit questions for the record after today's hearing please do so quickly because it is my intention to bring Congressman Ratcliffe up for a vote inside the Committee soon. At this point we will recess and reconvene this afternoon in closed session in the Senate Intel room in the Capitol, SVC 217. This hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon at 12:00 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