Open Hearing: Nomination of Mr. Terrence Edwards to be Inspector General (IG), National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)

[Senate Hearing 117-598] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 117-598 OPEN HEARING: ON THE NOMINATION OF TERRENCE L. EDWARDS TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ AUGUST 2, 2022 __________ 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 50-077 WASHINGTON : 2023 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE (Established by S. Res. 400, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.) MARK R. WARNER, Virginia, Chairman MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Vice Chairman DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California RICHARD BURR, North Carolina RON WYDEN, Oregon JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico SUSAN COLLINS, Maine ANGUS KING, Maine ROY BLUNT, Missouri MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado TOM COTTON, Arkansas BOB CASEY, Pennsylvania JOHN CORNYN, Texas KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York BEN SASSE, Nebraska CHUCK SCHUMER, New York, Ex Officio MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky, Ex Officio JACK REED, Rhode Island, Ex Officio JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma, Ex Officio ---------- Michael Casey, Staff Director Brian Walsh, Minority Staff Director Kelsey Stroud Bailey, Chief Clerk C O N T E N T S ---------- AUGUST 2, 2022 OPENING STATEMENTS Page Warner, Hon. Mark R., a U.S. Senator from Virginia............... 1 Rubio, Hon. Marco, a U.S. Senator from Florida................... 2 WITNESS Edwards, Terrence I., Nominee to be Inspector General of the National Reconnaissance Office................................. 3 Prepared Statement........................................... 6 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Questionnaire for Completion by Presidential Nominees............ 20 Additional Prehearing Questions.................................. 30 Posthearing Questions............................................ 42 OPEN HEARING: ON THE NOMINATION OF TERRENCE L. EDWARDS TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE ---------- TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 2022 U.S. Senate, Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in Room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark R. Warner, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Warner (presiding), Rubio, Wyden, Heinrich, King, Bennet, Casey, and Sasse. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK R. WARNER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA Chairman Warner. I want to call this hearing to order and thank you for being here today. Mr. Edwards, congratulations on your nomination to be the Inspector General for the National Reconnaissance Office, the NRO. You have an impressive background, both within the IC and at DOD, which I believe makes you well qualified for this important position. I believe that Cristan Farmer, your longtime partner, is here, and I would like to acknowledge her. Let me just recognize that Mr. Terrence Edwards has served the United States as a federal employee for almost two decades. As an attorney for the U.S. Army and the National Security Agency; as Deputy General Counsel for Management in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; and as Chief of Staff for the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Stacey Dixon. Intelligence Community IGs are important source of independent oversight of the Intelligence Community. Both Congress and the Executive Branch rely on IGs to assist their respective agencies in evaluating performance and identifying areas for improvement. Perhaps no responsibility is more important than ensuring lawful whistle-blowers are aware of their right to provide information about wrongdoing, to authorize recipients and are protected from reprisal for doing so. The NRO's classified budget is significant. And the NRO Inspector General plays a vital oversight role in detecting and hopefully deterring any fraud, waste, or abuse within the NRO. This is important as this budget is classified and therefore not subject to public scrutiny. As we conduct our oversight of the NRO, this Committee also relies on an independent and strong NRO IG to identify programs that may need improvement or cost savings may be found. Congress and the American people must have full confidence that their findings, and your findings when I hope you're going to be confirmed, are objective, independent, and entirely confirmed by facts. You should also know that if confirmed, you will have very big shoes to fill. Your predecessor Susan Gibson was in the job for more than five years before her recent retirement, and she ran a tight ship. She was admired by the IG community for integrity and professionalism, as well as for specific expertise in intelligence and procurement law and policy. I note that she has written a letter expressing your strong support for your confirmation, which speaks volumes to your qualifications for this job. I've reviewed the material provided by you prior to this confirmation hearing. I'm confident that you're a person of high integrity and well qualified for the job. Thank you, again, for being here today. And for your years of service to our country. I look forward to your testimony. I now recognize the Vice Chairman. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO, A U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA Vice Chairman Rubio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Edwards, for being here. First of all, thank you for your willingness to serve, and congratulations on your nomination. You know, what's interesting about the Intelligence Community writ large is the only area of government where the public basically trusts these oversight committees in the House and Senate, and the men and women who serve in the role you're about to serve as the full extent of the oversight over what happened. Because of the nature of their work, their budgets are often classified--their activities as well. And so that's it, obviously. This Committee, the House counterpart, and folks like yourself that serve in that role of oversight over the Community. So, it's really important in particular that the Community--that the agency that you will be in this role as Inspector General at the NRO, which is the premier intelligence agency on the planet, in terms of the ability to see things from overhead. And while it's the best in the world and continues to be, we face unprecedented challenges and threats from near-peer adversaries in China and in Russia who have launched capabilities and are continuing to expand their own capabilities in this field. And so, it's critical for us that oversight ensure that we are doing everything we can to deliver space capabilities to our Nation at the speed of technology; and that we expand investments in commercial space to protect our satellite resources with the same enthusiasm and the same attention as we have for building and delivering them. So, I encourage you to be mindful of that role that you will play once confirmed. And ensuring not just the safety and security of Americans and American interests, but also in the American people's confidence in the office that you will lead, if confirmed. So today is an opportunity to hear from you about your previous work in government, and in the Intelligence Community in particular. And we look forward to your testimony and your vision of what the role of Inspector General will be. Thank you. Chairman Warner. Thank you, Vice Chairman. Mr. Edwards, I'm going to ask you to stand and raise your right hand. [Witness stands and raises right hand.] Do you solemnly swear to give this Committee the truth, the full truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. Edwards. I do. Chairman Warner. Please be seated. I'm now going to ask you five standard questions the Committee proposes to each nominee who appears before us. They just require a simple yes or no answer for the record. One, do you agree to appear before the Committee here and in other venues when invited? Mr. Edwards. Yes. Chairman Warner. If confirmed, do you agree to send officials from your office to appear before this Committee and designated staff when invited? Mr. Edwards. Yes. Chairman Warner. Do you agree to provide documents and any other materials requested by the Committee in order to carry out its oversight and legislative responsibilities? Mr. Edwards. Yes. Chairman Warner. Will you both ensure that your office and your staff provide such materials to the Committee when we request it? Mr. Edwards. Yes. Chairman Warner. And finally, do you agree to inform and fully brief to the fullest extent possible all Members of this Committee of intelligence actions and covert action rather than only the Chair and the Vice Chair? Mr. Edwards. Yes. Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. Mr. Edwards we'll now proceed to your opening statement, after which I recognize all the Members by seniority for five minutes for questions. Mr. Edwards, the floor is yours. STATEMENT OF TERRENCE L. EDWARDS, NOMINEE TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE Mr. Edwards. Chairman Warner, Vice Chairman Rubio, and Distinguished Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as you consider my nomination to be the Inspector General for the National Reconnaissance Office. I am deeply honored that the President nominated me for this position, and I am grateful for the support of Director Haines, Principal Deputy Director Dixon, and Director Scalise. If confirmed, I look forward to engaging with you, Director Scalise, and the dedicated professionals at the NRO. In addition, if confirmed, I look forward to leading the talented NRO IG staff to affect positive change and to further the NRO's critical mission. Before I outline my qualifications, there are several important women in my life that I would like to thank. First, I would like to thank my mother, Deborah Edwards, who retired last year after serving this country for 30-plus years as a civil servant. She taught me the importance of commitment to service, having integrity, and being a hard worker. Second, I would like to thank my partner and best friend, Cristan Farmer, for taking this journey with me for 17 years. Third, I would like to thank the Honorable Susan Gibson, the Honorable Stacey Dixon, and Mrs. Cathy Szymanski for their leadership, mentorship, and confidence in me. I would also like to thank the many colleagues, friends, and family who have helped me throughout my career in this confirmation process. At a time when the American public demands more transparency and confidence in their institutions and policymakers, I believe the IG's role to provide independent, objective, and fact-based analysis of agencies, programs, and operations is vital and reinsuring to the American public that their institutions are serving them in a lawful, ethical, and effective manner. At each stage of my career, I have seen firsthand the importance of conducting careful and objective analysis of the facts and the law. I started my career in government as Army Fellow at the Army Materiel Command. From there, I became an attorney in the Office of General Counsel at the Army Sustainment Command, where I was immersed and ultimately fell in love with federal acquisition law, regulation, and policy. In that position, I learned the importance of oversight, knowing your craft, and having the courage to provide sound objective advice, despite the possible consequences. Being the lead attorney as a GS-9 on a $150 billion contract that provided critical services to our soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait taught me these lessons and more. I then went on to the Army Communications and Electronics Command, where I continued amongst other things to practice in the areas of acquisitions, procurement, and fiscal law, ultimately serving in the role of Senior Acquisition Attorney for the command. In 2012, I joined the Intelligence Community, working as a Senior Attorney at the National Security Agency. In 2016, I joined the ODNI's Office of General Counsel, where I served as a Deputy General Counsel for Management. In this position, I provided legal advice on a full range of areas for the DNI and a broader Intelligence Community, including ethics, appropriations, acquisitions, and space. Currently, I'm the Chief of Staff to the PDDNI, where I manage the operations of the PDDNI's office and serve as a PDDNI Senior Advisor on a full range of national security and management issues. As a result of my knowledge, and experience that I've gained, I am well grounded in many areas of law germane to the NRO and IG's missions, including fiscal and intelligence law, procurement integrity, whistle-blower protections, accounting, ethics, and security. My experience at both NSA and ODNI have given me important exposure into the vital acquisitions and intelligence roles of the NRO to ensure that the Nation has the right space-based capabilities it needs to stay safe and secure. I am also aware of the rapidly-changing nature of the space domain that brings new possibilities and challenges. I am mindful of the potential risks to NRO's mission, as the space domain becomes more competitive and contested. I have watched as the NRO has moved to embrace the growing commercial marketplace to procure new capabilities and increase resiliency and speed to address these potential risks. I believe the oversight of the NRO Inspector General, in coordination with Congress, plays a critical role in ensuring these new possibilities that are developed, implemented, and maintained in a lawful, effective, and efficient manner. To that end, I pledge to be transparent, accessible, and responsive to this Committee in support of Congressional requests and interest. Congressional oversight is fundamental to the checks and balances established in our Constitution. If confirmed, I will fully support the IG's notification in reporting requirements, and I will keep the NRO's oversight committees fully and currently informed. Mr. Chairman, I have been both blessed and honored to devote my career to public service. Each and every day I wake up, I come to the office, I give them all, and look to make a positive difference. I know the position I've been nominated for comes with great responsibility. If confirmed, I pledge to do my very best to keep making a difference and to serve with the integrity and purpose that this position and our Nation demands. Thank you again, for your consideration of my nomination, and I look forward to taking your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Edwards follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Edwards. Thank you for outlining what has been an obviously very distinguished career. I only have two or three quick questions. One of the things this Committee has been very forceful on with our friends at the NRO is recognizing the value of commercial space. And I think we've seen a bit of a sea change where at first there was quite a bit of pushback, kind of if not invented here, if not built here inside the government domain. I think the NRO has gotten much better. Obviously, there are certain things--exquisite technical metrics--that we need to do directly through the NRO alone. But how do you see the IG's role recognizing different types of acquisition rules? They're making sure we strike that balance right between commercial and government only in terms of overhead. Mr. Edwards. Senator, thank you for that question. I think it's critical that the IG execute its fundamental functions when reviewing any acquisitions, or any programs at the NRO. As the NRO moves in a new direction, and expands its commercial buy, or it expands, buying new additional capabilities. I think it's critical that the Inspector General's Office fully understands what he's doing, and reviews those programs to ensure they are effective and efficient, and assist where they can in helping to determine whether or not it makes sense to buy more commercial versus building organically. If confirmed, I would ensure that my office plays that role. And looking at whether or not the programs and procedures they put in place--that the NRO director puts in place--is appropriate and efficient. Chairman Warner. Related to that, and this is again an area where the Committee has been very, very active, we have been concerned that, particularly in terms of overhead, capabilities move so quickly. And that the old-fashioned process of putting out an RFP, putting out an RFI before an RFP, we took so long on acquisitions, by the time we actually made a selection built and launched, technology already passed us by. So, we don't want to sacrifice quality, and we obviously want to maintain the integrity of the programs. But the acquisitions process has oftentimes been way too slow. In a world where, between overhead, basic progress seems to have a new satellite constellation from the commercial side come every two to three years, how do we keep up with that acquisition process? And what role should you play in that? Mr. Edwards. Chairman, I think you're absolutely right. I think as technology moves most quickly, agencies are having a difficult time figuring out, again, how to utilize them within the structure that they have to operate. I think what the IG can do--and if confirmed, I will do--is making sure that, again, those agencies, or NRO specifically, fully understands what rules--the rules that are played under, are where there are flexibilities and where there are not flexibilities. To ensure that again, they could buy the technology and the capabilities in the timeframe that they are dealing with. Chairman Warner. Last question is, I remember early on, as I was trying to learn overhead and just trying to understand that IC side of the house--NRO, NGA, and some occasional activities with the Agency. Understanding that DOD side of the house was even more complicated. But now we've got Space Command, Space Force, NRO. I think the IG has got a critical role in how that intel side of the house interacts with our brothers and sisters on the DOD side. If you can speak to that for a moment? Mr. Edwards. Chairman, I have a lot of experience in that area. Being professional in both the DOD and the IC and being an acquisition professional. I think, in my experience, the DOD and the IC work really well together when they have effective communications and they have processes in place to talk through how they will deal with disagreements, and whether things that are of mutual interest, how they will work together on those things. I think the IG can be effective in ensuring that those communications and those processes and procedures are effective and efficient to ensure that they are both working or marching in the right direction. If confirmed, I would commit to ensuring that when we review those processes and procedures, we are providing recommendations that are actionable, so that we are getting to the end result. Chairman Warner. Thank you. Senator Rubio said he had to step out for one moment. He'll be right back. I'm going to go to Senator Heinrich and then Senator Sasse. Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for holding this hearing today. Congratulations, Mr. Edwards, on your nomination. I want to thank you for joining us today for one of our rare open hearings. I see from your record that you have over 15 years of federal government experience, most of them in the IC. I want to thank you for your continued service to our country. All agencies are challenged by the need to adapt and constantly improve cybersecurity programs and defenses, and certainly NRO is no exception. Should you be confirmed, will you commit to reporting to this Committee any security breaches that NRO discovers? And how NRO is working to prevent and deter such breaches? Mr. Edwards. Yes. Senator Heinrich. A year ago, the U.S. Space Command, the Space Force, and the NRO announced that they had developed a framework that formalizes end-to-end coordination between the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community, and between acquisitions and operations. What role should the NRO IG's office play in reviewing the collaboration and coordination between and among these organizations? And then just stepping back a little more broadly, how do you see the NRO Inspector General's Office playing a role in improving the Title 10/Title 50 relationship? Mr. Edwards. Senator, thank you for that question. I think in order for those processes that work well, they need to be effective and efficient. And I think that's where the IG can assist in reviewing those processes that they have established to make sure that again, they make sense, that they're actually going to meet the desired result. In my experience, being a professional in both a Title 10 and a Title 50 organization, I've seen that those agencies work really well together and more effectively when they have effective communication, and they're working off of the same page. And I think, as the IG, if confirmed, we can help in that area, because that's what the Inspector Act mandates us to do, is to look at procedures to ensure they're effective and efficient. Senator Heinrich. The independence of the IG in any agency is central to our confidence that investigations will be conducted objectively and fairly, and that benefits both the complainant and the target of an investigation. It's also why this Committee took steps to make the NRO IG, a Presidentially- appointed, Senate-confirmed position. In fact, you would be only the second NRO Inspector General to be Senate confirmed. So being able to raise difficult questions, issues with senior officials and agency directors is a very necessary quality in an IG. In your opinion, what are the measurable indicators of independence? And specifically, what actions would you take if a senior IC official sought to prevent you from conducting an audit or an investigation of any sort? Mr. Edwards. Senator, you're absolutely right. Independence is critical and is a cornerstone of the Inspector General Act. I think, if confirmed, what I would do is ensure that my office is following the standards that are outlined in regulation, law, and policy to ensure that we are being objective and fair. In addition, I think it's critically important that an IG have full control over their decisions, their staff, and their resources. It's my understanding today that the NRO IG has that, and if confirmed, I intend to maintain that. With respect to your second question, Senator, about if someone tried to prevent me from issuing a report. It's my understanding that the only individual that can request that I not look at something, if confirmed, is the Secretary of Defense. And that is under the Inspector General Act, Section 8, and that is in consultation with the DNI and only for national security purpose. And so, if a senior official or any person asked me not to look at something, if confirmed, I would try to work it out at the lowest level. I will remind them of the law to make sure that they fully understand and get, again, what I was attempting to do. And for some reason, if I was not able to work it out, I would work up the chain, to the director of NRO, and if necessary, come to this Committee for your assistance. Senator Heinrich. Mr. Chairman, those are all my questions. Thank you. Chairman Warner. Senator Sasse. Senator Sasse. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Edwards, congratulations on your past service and on this new potential calling. I think, building on what Senator Heinrich said about this being a rare public hearing for us, I think many of my constituents and my colleagues' constituents are often surprised to learn how much of a role the IC has in space. So, could you maybe walk the public through how you think about the role of the IC in space versus, say, NASA? Where there's collaboration, where there's duplicate efforts that are necessary? And why? Can you just explain the IC's role in space? Mr. Edwards. Yes. So, in my reading of Executive Order 12333, the NRO Director is responsible for the development, for acquiring and operating space-based systems for the collection of intelligence and information to ensure that the Nation is safe. I think that's a different mission than NASA is responsible for, although I think they may coordinate on things of mutual interest. But it's my understanding NASA does not collect intelligence. Senator Sasse. So, there's obviously platforms. And then there's the information that's gathered and the uses of that information. So, I'm like many on this Committee, a champion of NRO, NGA, other IC agencies that have responsibilities on or touching on space. But obviously, the technological developments that we're seeing happen in the private sector-- and the Chairman has been an effective and relentless advocate on this, Chairman Burr before him, Senator Blunt--have talked constantly about how much innovation we're seeing in the private sector. In your new responsibility, how would you look at whether or not the government is harnessing all of the greatest opportunities that exist, that are often faster and cheaper in the private sector? The government is often great at building exquisite systems and getting exquisite imagery, but often in ways that are sort of biased toward current uses. And one of the things we see happening in the private sector is a bias toward non-consumption--is often shattered when you end up with a sometimes lower-quality, but lots cheaper, use of a new commercial application. How would you approach the question of whether or not the agency is moving quickly enough to harness all the innovation of the American private sector? Mr. Edwards. Senator, again, thank you for your question. I think it's important, just being an acquisition professional, in general, for an agency, always to be looking at whether or not they can do it organically, or does it make more sense to go to the private sector. Oftentimes, there's a balance there, and that's, I think, what you're getting at. I think it's important that the agencies actually, you know, strike that balance to ensure again, they are not wasting the taxpayer dollars and they are, again, figuring out a way to ensure that they have the best capabilities to build it, to ensure they're protecting the United States. Where I think the IG can help and, if confirmed, where I would assist with that, is making sure that, again, the agencies or the agency, in this case NRO, make sure that it understands that the trade-offs they are making with respect to organic versus nonorganic, that they're doing it reasonably, and are taking into account all the things they're required to take into account when they're making that trade off. I think that the IG's office can assist in that by making sure that, again, when we review those programs, they are effective and efficient in making those decisions. Senator Sasse. Well, thank you. And I think the Committee will look forward to working with you and trying to instill and ask the hard oversight questions about that urgency. We're nearly at my time, but I want to ask one question about your day job today. You currently serve as the Chief of Staff to the Principal Deputy at ODNI. And I'm curious as to your public reflections on how that bureaucracy--how the ODNI is functioning, and if there are places where it can be trimmed to be quicker and more nimble? Mr. Edwards. Senator, I think we should always look at our processes to make sure that, again, they are working effectively and efficiently. I believe that, again, the ODNI is doing that. Senator Sasse. Thank you, Sir, very diplomatic. Chairman Warner. Mr. Edwards, I should have warned you. Senator King, and then we'll go to the Vice Chairman. Senator King. Mr. Edwards, I don't want you to be diplomatic. The major qualification for this job--you've got all the written qualifications of legal background, and staff work, and working in the Intelligence Community. But the real qualification for this job is backbone. Is the willingness and, in fact, relishing taking a position that is contrary to that of the people who hired you. And give me some reassurance because, as Senator Rubio pointed out at the beginning, the odd thing about these jobs that we're talking about here is you're going to work for a secret agency. Nobody else is watching other than this Committee and its comparable Committee in the House. In other words, the public doesn't--there's no newspaper that reports, that can know, what's going on within the NRO, that knows about the contracts, how they're structured. So, it's doubly important, it seems to me, because of the secret nature of the agency. And that makes your job doubly important, because very few other people are looking. Reassure me that you're willing to bite the hand that appointed you. Mr. Edwards. Senator, thank you for that question. I know this is a difficult job. My job has always been difficult as an attorney, where I've been responsible for advising the clients of what the law, regulation, and policy states, particularly when you're trying to advance mission. Senator King. Do you recall a time when as an attorney, you told your governmental clients, You can't do that because the law doesn't allow it? Mr. Edwards. Senator, I have no problems with saying no. I think a lot of an attorney's clients get upset with them, because they constantly say no, because the law, regulation, and policy requires them to do so--particularly in the areas that I'm expert in. If you're--we're talking ethics or fiscal law, there's oftentimes I have to say to my clients, we can't do that. If confirmed, I have no problems as the IG doing the exact same thing: Following the law, being tough but fair in the investigations, the audits, and evaluations that I do, because that's what this job requires. That's what the American people expect of me: making sure that, again, I'm providing oversight for things that they cannot see always. Senator King. Exactly. That's what I think. That's very important, and I'm heartened to hear your response. We haven't talked much in this hearing about whistle- blowers. Part of the IG's responsibility is the oversight and management of the whistle-blower process. It's interesting, I learned some time ago, the first whistle-blower law in the U.S. preceded the Constitution. It was in 1788, the Continental Congress passed the first whistle-blower law. And again, it's sort of anomalous for the government to pay people to differ with its own activities. So, can you commit to this Committee that you will have a fair, open, and reasonable process for dealing with whistle-blowers and not in any way try to suppress information that might come forward? Mr. Edwards. Senator, yes. I will absolutely commit to that. Whistle-blowers are essential to this process and to oversight. We must make sure, and if I'm confirmed I will make sure that all of the processes in my Office to educate them to open and welcome them to report any concerns that they have are effective, confidential, and frees them from any chances of reprisal. Senator King. I appreciate that. And earlier in the hearing you mentioned, I think, in response to Senator Heinrich's question, when in doubt, come to this Committee. Where cleared, we can hear, it's not a question of violating national security. But this Committee, we have a very deep interest and involvement with the Intelligence Community. And as I say, if there are questions, this Committee can, I think, be of assistance. Finally, as I think about the IG job, it's really an odd position, because the moment you're confirmed, you effectively become adversarial to the people who appointed you. And that's a very anomalous kind of situation. But I think it's the essence of the job, and that's why it's so important. I think the IGs are among the most important jobs in our entire governmental structure. And the IGs, as I mentioned, of the national security agencies, the Intelligence Community, are especially important because of the secret nature of those facility, of those agencies. So, I congratulate you on your appointment. I look forward to working with you. And remember, your job is to occasionally say no. Thank you. Mr. Edwards. Thank you. Vice Chairman Rubio. Thank you. And I don't have a lot of questions. I've one that's been touched on already, and it's the whistle-blower. And that the two most important whistle- blower scenarios, or the more two more difficult ones, is one that is potentially embarrassing to the executive, the people who run it, or a broader Administration. And then the other is when the individual coming forward, is alleging that their superiors have sought reprisal against them for doing the right thing or trying to punish them. These are two very delicate situations. And again, unlike any of these other agencies, where potentially a civil service employee could go outside of the system and give exposure, or leak, to a member of the media to expose some wrongdoing in an agency. You do that in the Intelligence Community, you're committing a very serious crime and harming our national security in the process. So, the key to people coming forward and saying, my superiors are taking reprisals against me, or, I'm coming forward with something but it's embarrassing to the people in charge. The key to that is the confidence that the Inspector General that is in office is actually an advocate and will do something serious about it. So, not having been presented with a case, these are all hypotheticals, although they exist in the real world. What can you do at the front end? What are the most important cues in your mind that give employees the confidence that if they have information about either reprisals and fear of reprisal, or that it will be potentially politically embarrassing--what are the cues that they take, in your mind, from an Inspector General that they have confidence in coming forward? Mr. Edwards. Vice Chairman, I think the first thing you have to do as an IG to ensure or to reassure whistle-blowers that you should have confidence in the system is making sure that, again, that they understand that the IG will take their claim seriously. And the way you do that is transparency. Is making sure you're transparent about what their rights are. You're transparent about how they are to come--or what the processes are when they come to the IG. When they come to the IG, making sure that, again, the staff treats them with respect, and takes their claim seriously, and protects their identity and their confidentiality. And then, if appropriate, if valid, look into their concern. I think if you do those things, they will have confidence that the IG is credible, and that when they come, they do not have to be fear that the IG will not do what they need to do to protect those individuals. Vice Chairman Rubio. Well, one additional role that I think is really important in my mind, and I was hoping you would maybe talk just a little bit about it, is the Inspector General's role in making sure that the programs and the Agency--in this case, the NRO--that they reflect the intent that was authorized by Congress. Oftentimes, and this is not unique to the Intelligence Community, Congress will say we are designing and we're funding and we're authorizing a program that does this. And then a year later, when we go back and look at it, it's not exactly--they have found every crevice and loophole to sort of do it the way they want to do it. And oftentimes, it's been Inspectors General who proactively have identified those places where the intent of Congress is not being done. How do you view the Inspector General's role in ensuring that Congressional intent is being followed in the implementation of policy and decisions? Mr. Edwards. I think the IG Act is fairly clear on what the role of the IG is. And the IG's job is to detect fraud, waste, and abuse--and deter it. And it is to ensure that programs are run efficiently and effectively. And so, we're talking Congressional intent and the law. I think, if an IG, and if confirmed, follows those principles in reviewing the programs that are of, you know, Congressional interest, or required by law, statute, or by stakeholders. The IG will be effective in, I think, actually looking at those programs. Chairman Warner. Senator Wyden. Senator Wyden. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Edwards, my apologies for being late. The Senate Finance Committee that Senator Warner serves on is keeping everybody busy, and I apologize for my tardiness. Congratulations and welcome to the Committee. In my view, reports from Inspectors General should be public. And at the very least, classified reports should be reviewed for possible declassification and public release. That has not been done enough. And Intelligence Community Inspectors General can help to change this. For example, the Inspector General for the NSA has made great strides in releasing their reports. So let's start with the NRO-IG semi-annual reports, a few of which were released to the public in 2017 and 2018. If you are confirmed, will you commit to the timely public release of all semi-annual reports? Mr. Edwards. Senator, yes. Senator Wyden. Did you say yes? Mr. Edwards. Senator, I did. Senator Wyden. Oh good! I'll quit while I'm ahead. Mr. Edwards. However, as you know, NRO is still a national security agency. And IGs still have the obligation to follow the law. And if confirmed, I would strike that balance of ensuring that, again, I work with the appropriate classification folks to ensure that, where possible, I could publish those semi-annual reports without offending any of the classification rules, to ensure that we are preserving national security. Senator Wyden. Let me conclude this area with one last question. Will you commit to reviewing all of your reports for possible declassification, public release? Mr. Edwards. Senator, absolutely. Senator Wyden. Okay. Now with respect to whistle-blowers, this is an area that our Committee spent a lot of time on and we feel very strongly about. Now, Congress recently passed legislation protecting IC contractors who make whistle-blower disclosures to their supervisors. NRO has a large contractor workforce. Tell me a little bit about how you are going to go about making sure that those contractors are protected from reprisals, because that is always the issue. You know, you can write down, and Senator Warner been very interested in it, I have, and Senator King--we've been very interested in whistle-blowers. So we write down the appropriate words and give as much directive as we can to protecting whistle-blowers. But at the same time, real people take these positions and I'd be interested in hearing from you how you're going to make sure that the contractors are protected from reprisals. Mr. Edwards. So, Senator, I think the first thing is making sure that, again, we are doing appropriate outreach to the diverse workforce at NRO, to include contractors, so they fully understand what their rights are so that when they submit information that is of concern, they feel as though they are going to be protected and that their identity is going to be protected. When they come to my office, if confirmed, I would reassure that my staff treats them with respect and make sure that, again, whatever they are bringing us, we're taking it seriously, we are protecting their identity and confidentiality, and we are acting appropriately to look into whatever they are bringing to us. Senator Wyden. I would only add, because I think that's a thoughtful answer, particularly you're going to be affirmative in terms of reaching out and the like, the first couple of cases that you're going to be dealing with--I hope you're confirmed, I'm planning to support you--are going to send a very important message to those contractors about how you're going to protect them from reprisals. So I would just urge in the strongest way possible, those first couple of cases could be sending a big message. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Warner. Any further questions? Well, I think, Senator Wyden, let me echo what you said on the question particularly on contractors. We've got an awful lot of them in my state and I think they do generally good work and they need to be afforded the protections. You know, I also think it's-- Senator Wyden is probably the most relentless voice on the Committee on transparency. We want that transparency. We also clearly have a mission at NRO where classification levels have to be because there is always going to be healthy tension on this Committee between those dual goals. And, you know, we would probably urge you to err on the side of transparency, but we also don't want to do things to put the national security interests of our country at risk. So I appreciate very much. I should, as I warned you before the hearing started, do not take the lack of attendance as anything other than a sign that most of my colleagues have reviewed your background and I think felt comfortable with that. But for the sake of the staff, if any Members of the Committee wish to submit questions for the record after today's hearing, please do so no later than noon on Thursday, August 4th. Potentially we could even move on this if we're here for a few more days and get you out of the Committee. Mr. Edwards, thank you again for appearing before the Committee today. Thank you to one of the women in your life who is here and the others who are not here--your mom or mentors. They also would be very proud, proud of you. And good luck going forward. With that, hearing is adjourned. Thank you. [Whereupon the hearing was adjourned at 3:14 p.m.] 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