Hearings
Hearing Type:
Open
Date & Time:
Tuesday, February 28, 2017 - 2:00pm
Location:
Dirksen 106
Witnesses
Full Transcript
[Senate Hearing 115-45]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-45
OPEN HEARING TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATION
OF HON. DAN COATS TO BE DIRECTOR
OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
OF THE
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Intelligence
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
24-745 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
[Established by S. Res. 400, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.]
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina, Chairman
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia, Vice Chairman
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
MARCO RUBIO, Florida RON WYDEN, Oregon
SUSAN COLLINS, Maine MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
ROY BLUNT, Missouri ANGUS KING, Maine
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma JOE MANCHIN, West Virginia
TOM COTTON, Arkansas KAMALA HARRIS, California
JOHN CORNYN, Texas
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky, Ex Officio
CHUCK SCHUMER, New York, Ex Officio
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Ex Officio
JACK REED, Rhode Island, Ex Officio
----------
Chris Joyner, Staff Director
Michael Casey, Minority Staff Director
Kelsey Bailey, Chief Clerk
CONTENTS
----------
FEBRUARY 28, 2017
OPENING STATEMENTS
Burr, Hon. Richard, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from North Carolina. 1
Warner, Hon. Mark R., Vice Chairman, a U.S. Senator from Virginia 2
WITNESSES
Chambliss, Hon. Saxby, former U.S. Senator from Georgia.......... 4
Coats, Hon. Dan, Nominated to be Director of National
Intelligence................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 12
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
Letter dated February 28, 2017, from the Electronic Privacy
Information Center............................................. 44
Prehearing Questions and Responses............................... 50
OPEN HEARING TO CONSIDER THE
NOMINATION OF HON. DAN COATS TO BE
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Select Committee on Intelligence,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m. in Room
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard Burr
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Committee Members Present: Senators Burr, Warner, Risch,
Rubio, Collins, Blunt, Lankford, Cotton, Cornyn, McCain, Wyden,
Heinrich, King, Manchin, and Harris.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, CHAIRMAN, A U.S.
SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA
Chairman Burr. I call this hearing to order. I'd like to
welcome our witness today, Senator Dan Coats, President Trump's
nominee to be the next Director of National Intelligence. Dan,
congratulations on your nomination and welcome back. I'm sure
you didn't expect to be walking in these halls so soon after
your retirement.
I'd also like to welcome back your wife and my good friend
Marsha, and I want to thank her for her support for you and her
willingness to share you with the rest of the country. I've
known both of you for many years and I've seen firsthand the
strength of the relationship that you so thoughtfully describe
in your statement for the record.
Our goal in conducting this hearing is to enable the
committee to consider Senator Coats' qualifications and to
allow for thoughtful deliberation by our members. He's already
provided substantive written responses to more than 148
questions presented by the committee and its members. Today, of
course, members will be able to ask additional questions and
hear from Senator Coats in both open and closed session.
Dan Coats comes to us with more than 34 years of honorable
service in the House, the Senate, and as the U.S. Ambassador to
Germany. Those of us who have had the good fortune to work with
Dan know the depth of his commitment to the intelligence
community and, more importantly, to its workforce.
Senator Coats, you've been asked to lead the intelligence
community in a time of profound threat and challenge. We're
facing threats from State and non-State actors alike and are
engaged in a robust debate at home on the scope and the scale
of intelligence collection and what authorities are right,
appropriate, and lawful.
I expect you will be a forceful advocate for the
intelligence community in those discussions, while maintaining
an unwavering respect for the rule of law. I have complete
trust that you will lead the community with integrity and will
ensure that the intelligence enterprise operates lawfully,
ethically, and morally.
As the DNI, one of your most important tools will be the
legal authorities provided under the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, scheduled to sunset later this year. They
enable the intelligence community to protect our troops,
anticipate terrorist threats, and to mitigate cyber attacks,
all while safeguarding the privacy and the civil liberties of
the American people.
Simply put, it's essential that Congress authorize these
authorities to help keep the country safe while protecting our
constitutional rights. I look forward to working with you and
all of my colleagues to reauthorize FISA as soon as possible.
Dan, I've known you for many years and believe your years
of service to our Nation and unique experience make you a
natural fit to lead our intelligence community. As mentioned to
Director Pompeo during his nomination, I can assure you that
this committee will continue to faithfully follow its charter,
conduct vigorous and real-time oversight over the intelligence
community, its operations, and its activities. We'll ask
difficult and probing questions of you and your staff and we
will expect honest, complete, and timely responses.
I look forward to supporting your nomination and ensuring
its consideration without delay. I want to thank you again for
being here and for your years of service to the country. I look
forward to your testimony, and I will now recognize the Vice
Chairman for any comments he might make.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK R. WARNER, VICE CHAIRMAN, A U.S.
SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also
want to welcome you, Dan, and congratulations on your
nomination to serve as the fifth Director of the National
Intelligence. We have known each other for many years and I
believe the President has made an excellent choice in asking
you to serve as DNI.
Let me also echo the Chairman's comments in acknowledging
your wife Marsha. I remember our wonderful trips we've had
together. I would point out that the only thing that I might
potentially hold against you is that your so-called sherpa that
you brought along, Senator Chambliss, raises some questions of
judgment in my mind, but I won't hold them against you
throughout the whole hearing today.
Senator Coats is well-known to the Senate Intelligence
Committee. He served as a senior member of this committee for
many years and has been an advocate for assertive oversight of
the intelligence community throughout his tenure. Dan firmly
believes in the value of intelligence and the importance of its
timely, relevant, and absolutely free of political influence.
As the Nation's chief intelligence officer, your job will
be to find and follow the truth regardless of where it leads.
It all comes down to the obligation that we've all talked about
on this committee when we served together: tell truth to power,
to the President, to the policy and military leaders, to the
Executive Branch, to members of Congress. Maintaining your
integrity and independence even in the face of political
pressure is an absolute requirement of this position.
Dan, the job for which you've been nominated has many
rewards and possibly even more challenges. You will be expected
to lead an enterprise, as we've talked about privately, of 17
diverse intelligence agencies. In some areas you will have
clear authority to direct actions. But, as we know, in most
areas the ODNI has to also convince rather than simply having
direct authority.
You'll be expected to serve as the President's top
intelligence officer, to coordinate and integrate intelligence
community activities, to lead the work to enhance the
effectiveness and efficiency of the intelligence enterprise and
ensure the integrity of that analytic product.
While these are just a few of the many issues you will
face, I know you're up to the challenge. But I need to make
clear, even in my opening statement, that one of the first
challenges I will ask you to take on, head on, is to support
our efforts to understand Russia's interference in the 2016
Presidential election. As you know, this committee is
conducting an investigation into that interference. We're also
looking into whether any individuals associated with U.S.
political campaigns inappropriately engaged with officials of
the Russian government. And we will seek to determine what the
intentions of those interactions were.
We take this matter very, very seriously. The Chairman and
I, as well as members of the committee on both sides of the
aisle, have made commitments that the outcome of this
investigation will not be prejudged and that the committee will
follow wherever the information leads. We need to get it right.
It's my intention that this investigation will remain
bipartisan and seek to be as transparent as possible and remain
free of any political consideration or interference, including,
including interference from the White House. I will not accept
any process that is undermined by such political interference.
This inquiry will be thorough and it will be exhaustive,
because at end of the day what we owe most is answers to the
American public. You know how important this type of inquiry
is. It's not about being a Democrat or Republican. Nor is it
about relitigating the 2016 election. This is truly about
upholding the core values and sanctity of the democracy that
all Americans hold dear. Our plan is to review both the raw and
finished intelligence and understand how the intelligence
community made its conclusions on Russian interference.
And I will ask you today again to commit to all members of
this committee that you will fully cooperate with this review
and that you will direct all the intelligence community
agencies to provide all the information that we require,
including the raw information, to make sure we get it right.
On other topics, you and I had a very good conversation in
my office a few weeks ago, where again we talked about the fact
that we didn't think you'd be back in so quickly. I very much
appreciated that conversation. And you assured me there that
you will not support the return of waterboarding or other so-
called ``enhanced interrogation practices,'' nor will you
support reestablishing secret detention sites operated by the
IC.
You also assured me that you will always present to the
President, his Cabinet and advisers and Congress the
unvarnished facts as represented by the best judgment of the
intelligence community, whether that analysis is in agreement
or disagreement with the views of the President or, for that
matter, anyone else. Again, I will ask you today to reaffirm
those commitments that you made to me and make them publicly to
the American public.
Finally, if confirmed--and I look forward to supporting
you--you will have the unique challenge of working for a
President who has said comments that I believe at times have
denigrated some of the work of the intelligence community. So
you will have a very incredibly important role to make sure
that the brave men and women who serve us, often in anonymity,
that you will have their back, and that you will make sure that
the morale of these brave men and women is increased and is
respected.
Senator Coats, again I want to thank you for being with us
today. I want to thank you for your willingness to serve. And I
look forward to working with the Chairman as we go through this
hearing. Thank you, very much.
Chairman Burr. Thank you, Vice Chairman.
I'd like to now recognize our former colleague, former Vice
Chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, and my good
friend, Saxby Chambliss, who will be introducing Senator Coats.
Saxby.
STATEMENT OF HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM
GEORGIA
Senator Chambliss. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Vice Chairman, members of the Committee.
Chairman Burr. Cut on that microphone, would you? I know
it's been a long time since you've been here.
Senator Chambliss. You know, when I was in the Senate
somebody did all this for me. I've had to adjust to a lot of
things like that.
[Laughter.]
It's really good to be back in front of so many friends on
this committee and, as much as I miss each of you individually,
I have to tell you I am frankly happy to be on this side of the
dais today.
I'm here today to introduce to you a friend of all of us,
Senator Dan Coats, who has been nominated by President Trump to
be the fifth Director of National Intelligence.
S. 2645 was introduced by Senators Feinstein, Rockefeller,
and Bob Graham on the 19th of June, 2002. Then, after two and a
half years of discussion and debate, the Intel Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 was passed overwhelmingly by
both the House and the Senate and signed into law by President
Bush. That Act created the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence and placed all of the--it placed the DNI at the
head of the 16 member intelligence agencies.
The DNI was charged with directing and overseeing the
national intelligence program and to serve as an adviser to the
President and the executive offices of the National Security
Council and the Homeland Security Council about intelligence
matters related to the national security of the United States.
Today I understand that ODNI has somewhere around 2,000
employees who support the DNI's oversight responsibility for
the entire National Intelligence Program of some $53 billion.
Some have recently questioned the structure and effectiveness
of ODNI, and perhaps after 12 years of the creation of a new
agency, particularly one as sensitive as this, perhaps a review
is in order.
But there is one thing that cannot be overlooked, and that
is that during these 12 years, with strong leadership from the
DNI, from a commitment to security by dedicated employees at
ODNI, and by very good oversight of this committee and the
HPSCI, ODNI has led an IC that has produced intelligence to its
customers that has prevented another large-scale attack against
America on U.S. soil.
We all know that the world is a more dangerous place than
ever today. Bad guys are greater in number and more
sophisticated in their operations than ever before. Thus, the
strong leadership from the DNI is more important today than
ever. No one is better suited to give that leadership than is
our friend and former colleague, Dan Coats.
As Ambassador to Germany, he was a customer of the IC. As a
long-time member of this committee, Dan participated in
conducting extensive oversight of the IC. Now he will be
providing the intelligence that is to be subjected to that
oversight. His experience prepares him well for both these new
roles.
I have traveled the world with Dan Coats many times,
visiting our counterparts, our allies, as well as world
leaders, and, while Dan is for the most part, as we all know,
very friendly and easy-going, I have had the opportunity to
observe Dan being very firm and direct in addressing sensitive
and difficult issues with all of those individuals that we have
visited and doing so in a very professional manner.
Dan has been in public service since 1976 when he was
district director for then-Congressman Dan Quayle. He then
served in the House of Representatives, the United States
Senate, Ambassador to Germany, and then again in the U.S.
Senate. Now, after that remarkable 40-year career, Dan is
willing to continue to serve his country as the DNI.
Lastly, let me say that a lot of Dan's strength comes from
the constant support he has received from his lovely wife,
Marsha, to whom he's been married for now over 50 years. I will
leave it to Dan to introduce her, but suffice it to say she's
been a great teammate. Using a little sports nomenclature
there, since I still have my Top Secret clearance I get some
pretty good intelligence from time to time, and one piece of
intelligence I picked up on about Dan is that he's a huge
Chicago Cubs fan. Needless to say, he felt pretty good last
fall.
But one other thing I found out about him is that the day
after he and Marsha were married he took her to a Cubs game.
And his marriage still survived that.
[Laughter.]
It is my pleasure to introduce to you Senator Dan Coats,
and I urge all of you to vote to send Dan's nomination to the
floor of the Senate quickly and to very quickly confirm him as
the new Director of National Intelligence.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Burr. Saxby, thank you.
Dan, if you would stand, please. Raise your right hand. Do
you solemnly swear to give the committee the truth, the full
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
Senator Coats. I do, so help me.
Chairman Burr. Please be seated.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAN COATS, FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA,
NOMINATED TO BE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
Chairman Burr. Dan, before we move to your statement, I'd
like to ask you to answer five questions that are standard for
the committee. We pose them to each nominee who appears before
us. They just require simple yes or a no answer for the record.
Do you agree to appear before the committee here and in other
venues when invited?
Senator Coats. Yes.
Chairman Burr. If confirmed, do you agree to send officials
from your office to appear before the committee and designated
staff when invited?
Senator Coats. Yes.
Chairman Burr. Do you agree to provide documents or any
other materials requested by the committee in order for us to
carry out our oversight and legislative responsibilities?
Senator Coats. Yes.
Chairman Burr. Will you both ensure that your office and
your staff provides such materials to the committee when
requested?
Senator Coats. Yes.
Chairman Burr. Do you agree to inform and fully brief to
the fullest extent possible all members of the committee of
intelligence activities and covert action, rather than only the
Chair and Vice Chairman where appropriate?
Senator Coats. Yes, where appropriate. Yes, where
appropriate.
Chairman Burr. I want to thank you very much. We'll now
proceed to your opening statement. You're recognized.
Senator Coats. Thank you.
I have remarks thanking Saxby. He needs to leave and I want
to jump ahead just a little bit of what I am going to say in my
written remarks to you, just to thank him, a great friend,
someone I had the pleasure of serving under on this committee.
He has left his mark in many, many ways, including friendship
among his wife and Saxby between Marsha and me. I just want to
thank him for being willing to come here today and to make
these remarks on my behalf.
Chairman Burr, Vice Chairman Warner, members of the
committee: I'm honored to appear before you as nominee for the
position of Director of National Intelligence. It was a great
privilege of mine to have served on the Senate Select
Committee, this committee, on Intelligence, and to see up close
the great work done by all the members of the staff and their
supporters.
I'll admit, however, that the view is a little bit
different down here from up there. In fact, I recall many days
sitting up there, looking to who was ever down here, and
saying, I'm glad that's not me. Well, here I am.
I'd like to begin by thanking President Trump for
nominating me for the position of Director of National
Intelligence. I'm humbled by his confidence in me and will work
tirelessly to lead the world's, what I believe and I think most
believe, the finest intelligence enterprise in the world.
I would like to also thank Vice President Pence, my Indiana
colleague and someone that I'm honored to call my friend, for
his support. I deeply appreciate his faith in me.
I would also like to acknowledge the work of the previous
DNI, Jim Clapper, and his Principal Deputy, Stephanie
O'Sullivan. Their oversight of the intelligence community of
the past years has been commendable and their guidance in
helping me prepare for this position has been most helpful.
They left in place an experienced and a great team which have
been instrumental in providing a smooth transition for the ODNI
and for the IC.
Also, I want to recognize my fellow Hoosiers, who elected
me several times to the House of Representatives and to the
United States Senate over the past years. I've always done my
best to represent them and I'm honored by the confidence that
they have put in me time and time again. While I will always be
a Hoosier at heart, if confirmed as the next Director of
National Intelligence I will represent the dedicated men and
women of the Office of Director of National Intelligence and
the broader intelligence community to the best of my ability.
Finally, saving the best for last, I would like to thank my
wife Marsha, my children Laura, Lisa, and Andrew, who is here
today. Together my three children have produced, according to
Marsha's and my observation, ten almost perfect grandchildren.
My career in public service is a direct reflection of my
family's enduring support and love and without their
encouragement I would not be sitting here today.
It's been a long road of public service that's brought me
here before you. After 34 years of service in the House, the
Senate and as U.S. Ambassador to Germany, I was ready to make a
transition and planned to move on to a new chapter of my life-
long journey, back home again to Indiana.
But, as I have learned over those 34 years, life doesn't
always work out the way you think it's going to work out. When
called upon to consider this position, I first consulted my
most important adviser, my wife Marsha, as I examined the
responsibilities of such a significant office. As a former
teacher and family therapist, Marcia understands me probably
better than anybody and the importance of public service. She
is the rock that provides stability and wise counsel, shoulder
to shoulder with me in every aspect of my life.
And while I'm no longer retiring from public service, what
I am retiring as I sit here today is my policy hat, a hat I
wore proudly for years as I represented the views of my
constituents, offered policy proposals, made judgments and cast
votes in the committee and on the floor. That will be replaced.
It's retired.
But if confirmed I put on a new hat, the DNI hat. And just
as this government transitions to a new leadership, I too hope
to transition to the role of principal intelligence adviser to
the President and all the duties that come with that. In this
new role it will be my responsibility to present the President,
senior policymakers throughout the Administration, and you the
Congress with the best and most objective, nonpolitical and
timely intelligence as you consider policies in the future for
our great Nation.
The President and I have personally discussed my potential
role as his principal intelligence adviser and we both
recognize that this position is frequently the bearer of
unpleasant news. But if confirmed, my responsibility would be
to provide him with the most accurate and objective and
apolitical intelligence possible.
In my various conversations with many of you prior to this
hearing I was asked about how I see the larger role of the DNI.
Those who know me--and Saxby referenced this, that I'm an avid
sports fan and never more avid than this past year as I
celebrated the seemingly impossible accomplishment of the
Chicago Cubs after 108 years of effort, winning the World
Series.
So allow me to compare how I see my role as DNI using,
well, not a baseball analogy, but a football analogy. On a
football team the players are guided by a variety of coaches.
You see them standing along the sidelines and wonder how many
there are. At one time I counted and I thought there were 17
and I thought that meant something here relative to the number
of agencies we look after.
There's a coach for offense, a coach for defense, special
teams, one for the offensive line, one for the defensive line,
one for the quarterback and on and on it goes. But every team
has a head coach, that leader who walks the sidelines and,
while not dictating to each coach, assistant coach, how to do
their specific job, pulls each of these specialists together to
form a seamless and focused team.
I see the role of Director of National Intelligence as
analogous to the head coach role for the intelligence
community, integrating the IC and leveraging all the expertise
in our community. We have immense talent resident in many of
the agencies across the IC. Yet each one contributes unique
capabilities or expertise that is necessary for a team to be as
a whole successful: the unique access of our human intelligence
sources and the detailed analysis from the Central Intelligence
Agency; the important input from the Defense Intelligence
Agency; the signals intelligence expertise of the National
Security Agency, which I believe is second to none; the
geospatial mastery demonstrated by the National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency; the acquisition proficiency of our
satellite specialists at the National Reconnaissance Office;
the force multiplier the intelligence elements of the armed
services bring to this team effort; the domestic
counterterrorism and counter-intelligence work done by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation; and the specialized skills of
the IC elements resident within the Departments of State,
Treasury, Justice, Homeland Security, and Energy.
Like a head coach, I see it as my job to pull all of these
team members together under the same game, to produce the best
coordinated and the best integrated intelligence we can find,
to make the whole greater than the sum of the parts. And given
the complicated threat environment that we face today in this
country and around the world, now more than ever the IC must
work as a team.
The threats that we face today are more challenging,
dynamic, and geographically diffuse than ever before. Allow me
to address in no particular order what I see as some of the
most challenging issues we currently face. And I could spend a
lot of time on this, so I will abbreviate and talk about just a
few.
Clearly the rising cyber threat must be highlighted.
Cyberspace is both a resource and a liability, an increasingly
connected world that creates opportunities, but also many
vulnerabilities.
Not unrelated, I would also highlight the threat of radical
Islamic terrorism, which continues to be a significant threat
to the United States and its allies abroad. They're spreading
their message of fear and hate through cyberspace and
mobilizing to venues beyond their self-described caliphate.
China's continued regional activism, including its disputed
territorial claims in the East and South China Seas is
troubling and will be a long-term challenge for the United
States.
Russia's assertiveness in global affairs is something I
look upon with grave concern, which we need to address with
eyes wide open and a healthy degree of skepticism. And North
Korea's nuclear ambitions and, quite frankly, provocations are
something the intelligence community needs to be laser-focused
on.
The list continues with a diverse set of challenges,
including those in Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, and other hot
spots around the world. In order to address these threats, I
will bring my years of experience on how to execute on a plan
and bring together teams of people toward a common goal.
As the Ambassador to Germany from 2001 to 2005, I oversaw
the activity of more than a dozen Federal agencies at the
American Embassy. I trust that my experiences coordinating and
integrating that many different departments and agencies,
overseeing their activities, leveraging their strengths and
bringing them together under a single strategy will serve me
well as DNI.
As a member of Congress in both the House and Senate, I
have always had a keen interest, as hopefully you know, in
ensuring that we are responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.
In evaluating Federal programs, I always made it a point to ask
questions about what works, what doesn't and why. I also
believed it was important to assess how we establish
priorities. We must ask ourselves, in a time of tightened
budgets, what programs are truly essential and which may no
longer be necessary or only partly necessary or of lower
priority?
How does each program support our overall goal or strategy
and is it duplicative of another effort? I will be looking to
ask the IC these and many more questions if confirmed as DNI.
In the vein of efficiency, there has been much discussion
about the role of the DNI and the Office of the DNI. Let me
share with you what I have learned in preparation for this
opportunity. Over the last 12 years since its inception, the
ODNI has been tasked with a variety of responsibilities, in
statute, many in statute, in Executive Orders, and in
Presidential memoranda, along with recommendations coming from
the 9/11 Commission and the Silberman-Robb Commission on WMD.
The people supporting these directives are hard-working
folks from all across the IC. Of note, a significant portion of
the ODNI's workforce is on rotation from other IC agencies. As
you know also, NCTC, an organization of 750 people, created by
the law enacted in 2005, is counted in that number that we
have, which is less than 2,000 and, by the way, less than a
third of the number of band members for the armed services. So
that may put it in some perspective.
ODNI was established to counter the pre-9/11 stove-piping
by individual intelligence agencies and ensure collaboration
and integration across the intelligence elements. The people
who are supporting these directives are hard-working folks from
all across the IC.
ODNI brings together talent from across the community to
integrate intelligence and does its best to connect the dots--
not just specific dots from the specific agencies and
specialties. In keeping with my earlier football analogy, you
can't play a complete game with just a star quarterback and a
wide receiver. Maybe if you're the New England Patriots you can
pull that off once in a while, but I don't think that happens
very often. But even the Pats need a strong offensive line, a
stout defense, agile special teams and a talented place kicker,
along with many other players, to be the best in the business.
Not every player in a football team is going to be the MVP,
but they are a team nonetheless and everyone on the field plays
a critical role. And when we the IC succeed, we succeed as a
team. If we come up short, we fail as a team and we use that
experience to address it so that doesn't happen again.
As I looked at the many requirements of the office
reflected in various laws, orders and recommendations, I have
been impressed by the office's responsiveness to these many
tasks within the reasonable resources that they have. Recent
commentary on the size of the ODNI doesn't mesh with what I've
seen firsthand and I believe it does a disservice to this
committee and your efforts to keep the size of ODNI in check,
which is your obligation and my obligation.
That said, as I discussed earlier, I believe every
government agency must constantly review its operations, and
I'll be taking a look at not only the ODNI, but the entire IC,
and try to learn how we can do things more efficiently and
effectively. We don't have a choice.
Much has been made publicly about the role of our
intelligence enterprise and how it will fare in the future, and
I'm encouraged by what I see. With the leadership team in place
at the IC agencies, I know that this community will continue as
the world-class intelligence enterprise it is today.
Before going to questions, let me just share with you the
early goals that, if confirmed, I will share with the IC. I
intend to push the IC to be the best it can and not accept the
status quo when it comes to challenges facing our Nation. I
intend to ask the IC to be innovative in its approach to hard
problems and the solutions to solve them.
I intend to be a champion for the hard-working men and
women of the IC, be there for them the way they are here for
all of us. Every day the men and women of the IC are working
tirelessly on the front lines, often in the shadows, oftentimes
in very dangerous situations, with a common goal of keeping
America safe and secure.
I also intend to work with all of you, as a former member
of the committee, to assure you that the IC has the support it
needs to tackle whatever the opposing teams bring our way and
to ensure that the Congress and this committee have access to
the information you need to conduct your oversight
responsibilities.
I am honored by the opportunity to be here today and I
thank you for your consideration of my nomination. And with
that, I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Senator Coats follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Burr. Dan, thank you very much.
Let me say for members, I'll recognize members in order of
seniority for a five-minute round. For those that need it, we
will have a follow-up round. Just for members' timing, we'll go
from the open hearing immediately when complete to a closed
hearing for whatever period that might take, and that will be
in our normal hearing room.
With that, let me recognize myself for five minutes. Dan,
you and Marsha had a good gig, you know, retirement. She was
excited. You were actually really excited--34 years. Now you've
got--now you've agreed to do a job that many have called
thankless. Why?
Senator Coats. I've been asked that question many times at
each step of the journey, and the response has always come down
to a sense of duty. When asked to serve your country, whether
it was in uniform, which I did for two years, or whether it was
in the Congress or as Ambassador and the run for the Senate
again after quite a hiatus, and then to say yes to this job, I
was reminded of the phrase that runs through my mind: I dreamt,
I believed that life was a beauty, and I think that's what I
was looking forward to. I awoke and found that life is a duty.
So I believe, if asked by your leader of your country to
serve your country again, the answer needed to be yes.
Chairman Burr. I know you understand well from your
experience on the committee how valuable raw intelligence can
be to the oversight process. If asked by committee, will you
provide the raw intelligence and sourcing behind intelligence
community finished product and assessments?
Senator Coats. I absolutely believe that is my
responsibility and the responsibility of the IC, to provide
what this committee needs to do its oversight properly.
Chairman Burr. I noticed in your statement that you
highlighted, and I quote, ``acquisition proficiency of our
satellite specialists,'' unquote, at the National
Reconnaissance Office. I'm sure you probably agree, however,
that the requirements development process for our satellites is
in need of significant reform. Will you work with the committee
to streamline that process to ensure that we can more quickly
get to the design, build and launch phase?
Senator Coats. Absolutely. Agility is critical in this time
of rapid technological change. We see, I believe now, 11
nations who have the capacity to launch instruments into space.
I was shocked the other day to read that the nation of India on
one rocket launch deposited more than 100 satellites in space.
They may be small in size with different functions and so
forth, but one rocket can send up I think it was 111 platforms.
We cannot afford to be behind the curve in terms of
development of both the offensive and defensive capacities that
we put up into space. And so, streamlining that acquisition
process is not something that, yeah, should be done; it's of
utmost urgency that it has to be done.
Chairman Burr. There's been much discussion about the role
that the Central Intelligence Agency played in the detention
and interrogation of terrorist suspects as part of the RDI
program. Those detention facilities operated by the CIA have
long been closed and President Obama officially ended the
program seven years ago.
I think the debate space on this subject has become
confused and I'm certain that the law is now very clear. Do you
agree that it would require a change in law for the CIA or any
government agency to lawfully employ any interrogation
techniques beyond those defined in the Army Field Manual?
Senator Coats. I absolutely support that. That is the law.
I might note for the committee, you may--I'll bring it up if
you don't. When that vote on the NDAA came up, the McCain
Amendment, I was one of a few who did not support that
amendment. First of all, I absolutely will follow the law in
every aspect regardless of what my personal thoughts might be.
I only had one reservation that I couldn't reconcile in my
mind. I didn't think no because I didn't think that's where we
needed to go. I voted no because I thought perhaps we ought to
at least have a discussion about what do you do in a situation
when you have the necessary intelligence to know that something
terrible is going to happen to the American people in a very
short amount of time and you have the legitimate individual who
can tell you where that radiological bomb or biological
material is and you don't have time to go through the process
that the Army Field Manual requires?
I'm not saying that should--I'm not saying--I'm not
trying--as I said, I took off my policy hat. I'm no longer
engaged in that process. I follow the law that's there and I
ensure that the IC follows the law, and the answer to your
question is absolutely.
But I do think it's at least worth discussion relative to
the situation that might occur where we might have to,
hopefully with some special authority, might have to go outside
that. I don't have the prescription for that. I'm not going to
advocate for that. I'm simply trying to define what was going
through my mind when that amendment came up. I thought we
needed a little more discussion on that. That was on the policy
side. That hat's gone.
Chairman Burr. You mentioned in your opening statement that
you intend to ask the intelligence committee to be innovative
in its approach to hard problems. I just want to say this, Dan:
As you know, I've been pushing the community to innovate for
many years, and I look forward to working with you and
supporting this endeavor to change an IC community that looks
forward with innovation as an opportunity, as have many on this
committee.
Turn to the Vice Chairman.
Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me echo what the Chairman has said about satellites and
our whole overhead capacity. I think you were part of many
vigorous debates that we had to make changes in that field and
make it much more future-oriented and recognize, as you pointed
out, both other nations moving in this area and tremendous
opportunities within the commercial space. So I appreciate your
answer on that.
I do want to, as I mentioned in my opening statement,
though, get you back on the record on a couple of items that I
think are terribly important. I want to start again with an
issue of great importance to me and I believe this committee,
and that is our current investigation into the Russian hacking
attempts. Do you promise to fully and completely cooperate with
the committee's investigation of the Russian election hacking,
including by turning over all requested IC cables, intelligence
products, and other materials to the committee as promptly as
possible?
Senator Coats. I think it's our responsibility to provide
you access to all that you mentioned.
Vice Chairman Warner. And do you plan to continue any
investigations the IC is carrying out or may carry out
regarding Russia's active measures, especially as they refer to
interference in elections in our country and, for that matter,
countries around the world?
Senator Coats. I think this is something that needs to be
investigated and addressed. I have not seen the classified
information on that. As my colleagues may or may not know, the
day you go sine die here and you're leaving the Senate you lose
your classification. You have to start over at zero. It took
much longer than we had anticipated. So I just received it last
Thursday. I was back in Indiana last week helping to try to
close things down there to return here. So I have not had the
opportunity to be briefed on what the classified version of
that investigation has come up with.
So in answer to your question, yes, I think this is an
issue. Russia has a long history of propaganda and trying to
influence various nations' cultures and elections and so forth.
It's happening in Europe now as we speak. But they seem to have
stepped up their game and they are using cyber and they are
using sophisticated methods now that they didn't have before.
So I think it's a very key issue that we understand fully
what has happened and how it's happened and have a full report
on that. I certainly will make sure the IC produces the
intelligence access that you need to do your job.
Vice Chairman Warner. I appreciate your answer.
Obviously, one of the core functions of the IC--and as ODNI
you'll have to coordinate this, the analogy back to the coach--
of making sure that you speak truth to power. You've got a
remarkable background, but you will be the first DNI who was
not either career military, career intelligence, or a career
professional diplomat, and again similar to Mike Pompeo, being
more a political or a policy advocate. How will you ensure that
the intelligence community will continue to provide unvarnished
assessments to the President and his Administration regardless
of any politics?
Senator Coats. Well, that's our responsibility and that's
my primary responsibility, to make sure that the intelligence
community knows exactly what our standards are, what we can do
and what we can't do. I want to make it very, very clear to all
elements of the intelligence community that our job is to do
our job, and our job is not to formulate policy, our job is not
to influence intelligence in any way for political reasons; our
job is to present the, as you said, truth to those who make
policy decisions about where we go. And I will not tolerate--I
will not tolerate anything that falls short of that standard.
Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you.
The Chairman raised the issue around the current law in
terms of the U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogation. I would
simply point out that every day in one form or another the
military deals with some form or another of the so-called
ticking time bomb scenario. And I believe General Mattis has
appropriately pointed out that he would not stray from the Army
Field Manual because he feels the so-called ``enhanced
interrogation techniques'' just don't work. I would hope that
you would echo again what you said in the last, that you would
commit to following the law and not lead some effort to try to
change that law.
Senator Coats. I can absolutely say that I have no other
obligation except to follow the law on that. I would say, I
greatly respect the views of John McCain, who not only
understands this but has been subject to it, and General Mattis
and his years and years of experience. I respect both of those
and I intend to be available to work with them and talk with
them. But the goal is clear, the law is clear, and following
what that law is is my primary responsibility and I will adhere
to that.
Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Burr. Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Dan, I don't really have any questions for
you. You sat right here for all the time that you did and I
know what your decision-making is like, and you and I wrestled
with some of these tough decisions we had to make and I know
what your analysis is like and I have absolutely confidence. I
think it was a great appointment by the President.
Senator Coats. Thank you.
Senator Risch. Thank you, and especially thank Marsha for
agreeing that you could do this job. We really appreciate it,
America appreciates it. Thank you for your willingness to do
that.
Senator Coats. Just a comment. I've been sitting here
looking at that empty chair. Who died?
[Laughter.]
Senator Risch. That's Senator Rubio's chair now and----
Senator Coats. Oh, I'm sorry.
Senator Risch [continuing]. I'm not going to comment.
Senator Coats. I hope he's not watching on C-Span. He'll be
showing up through the door.
Senator Risch. I'm not going to comment on the trade that
was made here. But again, thanks much.
As you know, they are remodeling your office that's next to
mine on the fourth floor. Man, it's, it's a mess. I wish you
hadn't have left, to be honest with you.
Senator Coats. Were you able to seize a new room on the
other end there?
Senator Risch. No, I wasn't. But that doesn't mean I didn't
try.
Senator Coats. Well, I could probably try to help you on
that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Risch. Thank you.
Senator Coats. Thank you.
Chairman Burr. Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It's good to see my former Finance Committee partner in the
cause of bipartisan tax reform. I was a little baffled in all
the references to football since Hoosiers are about my game,
basketball. But we'll talk about that another time.
In January of 2017, the intelligence community issued a
written assessment that Vladimir Putin and the Russian
government developed a clear preference for President-elect
Trump. Given President Putin's--excuse me. Given Putin's
preferences, how are you going to actually show our allies,
with elections coming up, that the intelligence community will
support them against Russian efforts to influence their
elections?
Senator Coats. Well, as I said earlier, Russia has a long
history of doing this, although they've stepped up their game
and they're using more sophisticated tactics. As I also said, I
haven't seen the classified version of this, but I think it's
publicly known and acknowledged and accepted that Russia
definitely did try to influence the campaign. To what extent
they were successful, I don't think we know.
But following through on that in terms of informing our
allies of what we have experienced and what they're probably
going to experience gives them I think the ability to better
understand what the Russian efforts are.
I think the transparency of what has happened is necessary
for the American people so that when they make their judgments
about future, whether future elections or whatever, they
understand that there are outside forces trying to influence
them one way or another.
I do think this is an issue that ought to be looked at
carefully and there needs to be, frankly, a response. Vice
President Pence at the Munich Security Conference--I was not
there, but I read his remarks--said there needs to be
consequences for what the Russians are trying to do.
Senator Wyden. What I hope we'll see is that, because
people are concerned that what happened to us will happen to
them, that you will make intelligence-sharing with these
countries a priority.
Senator Coats. I think that's already being done, and needs
to be done.
Senator Wyden. I wanted to hear it from you. But we'll move
on.
You said that if you're confirmed, the reauthorization of
Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act would
be your top legislative priority. For years, I and members of
Congress have been asking for an estimate of how many innocent,
law-abiding Americans' communications are getting swept up in
this collection. Will you commit to getting this number to this
committee and the public before reauthorization?
Senator Coats. Yes, I do. I'm going to do everything I can
to work with Admiral Rogers in NSA to get you that number. I've
been told it is an extremely complex process for a number of
reasons. As I said, without a classification I don't know what
all these reasons are. I need to learn what they are, but I
also need to share with Admiral Rogers the need, I think, to
get this committee not just those numbers, but all the
information they need with which to make a judgment as to the
reauthorization.
The intelligence community believes that the
reauthorization is extremely important; it's a program that has
provided a significant amount of intelligence relative to what
foreign agents or individuals are trying to do to harm
Americans. So it has layers of oversight at all three levels of
government. It has been examined by the PCLOB, the Privacy and
Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and supported by the FISA
Court.
But this is something that you will be going through during
this next year and we want to make sure you have all the
information you feel you need in order to make whatever
adjustments that Congress decides to make.
Senator Wyden. So you'll commit to making sure we have the
number of innocent Americans being swept up before
reauthorization. Will you commit to declassifying any secret
legal interpretations related to FISA as well?
Senator Coats. Well, that's something that I'll have to
continue to work with you on. Obviously, I'm going to commit to
do everything I can to try to get you that number. I need to
find out why it has taken so long and what are the
complications in getting that number. But I think it's
important for the committee----
Senator Wyden. This is declassification as well as the
number.
Senator Coats. But on the declassification, as long as it
doesn't--I mean, the declassification process is in place so
that we can, if there are sensitive sources and methods that
can be exposed, that have negative consequences to our
intelligence agency, we obviously have to classify those. But
those that we can declassify, for the needed purpose, I think
we need to do.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, if I could just take a few
more seconds, as you did.
My point is--and I appreciate what Senator Coats is trying
to say here--A, we need that number. We have sought it for
years and years. More and more Americans are getting swept up
in these searches. We're trying to legitimately go after
foreign targets that are a threat to us, but as
telecommunications systems become globally integrated we're
getting more and more law-abiding Americans swept up.
So we need that. We need declassification. I look forward
to working with you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Burr. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome back, Senator Coats. We're delighted to see you.
As the author, along with former Senator Joe Lieberman, of
the 2004 law that created the Director of National
Intelligence, I have a special interest in your nomination. I'm
delighted that the President has chosen you for this important
position and I believe that he could not have made a better
choice.
Senator Coats. Thank you.
Senator Collins. I want to talk to you about the importance
of the DNI serving, as the law provides, as the principal
intelligence adviser to the President. I'm concerned about
reports that the President is changing the composition of the
so-called Principals Committee on the National Security Council
by adding his chief strategist and downgrading, or so it
appears, the role of the Director of National Intelligence.
How will you ensure that you can fulfill the statutory
mandate to serve as the President's top intelligence adviser at
National Security Council meetings if this proposed
reorganization goes forward?
Senator Coats. That's a question that I have been
addressing directly with the President and his staff. I was
informed that the drafting of that executive order was not
intended to not have the Director of National Intelligence as
part of the Principals Committee. It was drafted before--by
President Bush's administration, before the DNI was even stood
up. And so they took language from that, never intending not to
have the DNI be a part of the Principals Committee.
I have been reassured time and time and time again from the
President to his advisers that I'm welcome and needed and
expected to be a part of the Principals Committee. It's
essential to the process of being in a position to know what is
moving on up to the National Security Council relative to the
team.
I have great confidence in General McMaster in terms of his
putting together a team that he knows will be the most
effective NSC team that he can. And I think relative to who is
added or not added to that team will be under his jurisdiction
and that, as I said, I have very great confidence that he is
going to put that team in place that he thinks can best serve
the President.
Senator Collins. Thank you. That's very reassuring, since I
can't imagine having the Deputy DNI on the Deputies Committee
and then not having the DNI on the Principals Committee, which
meets to resolve issues that are of the highest level that the
deputies could not resolve. And surely the President should
want to have his principal adviser on intelligence matters
present at those very important meetings.
Senator Coats. And I was ensured that that was the intent
and the other was just a mischaracterization of the Executive
Order.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
A second issue that I want it raise with you is that
President Trump has asked an individual who runs a private
equity firm to lead a broad review of the U.S. intelligence
agencies. As far as I can tell, this individual does not have
national security experience, nor does he appear to have
experience in intelligence.
As you're well aware, the President can already receive
independent advice from the President's Intelligence Advisory
Board, which can provide outside advice regarding a full range
of intelligence activities. So to have this additional review,
particularly from an individual who does not appear to have the
requisite background, appears to be a textbook definition of
waste and duplication.
In addition, in your statement you talked very eloquently
about the responsibility the DNI has to bring the intelligence
agencies together to review, to make sure they are working
effectively and efficiently. My concern is that an outside
review by an individual without experience can result in
recommendations that are essentially armchair quarterbacking of
the leadership of the intelligence community.
Do you view it as your job to review the operations of the
intelligence community?
Senator Coats. I do, and I've made that clear to the
President and to his advisers, that that is where I stand.
Clearly, as I said in my opening statement, every agency needs
to consciously review itself, particularly at a time when
budget resources are restrained--well, at any time, whether
they are or not. We want an efficient and effective government,
streamlined to efficiency.
But in terms of looking at that and assigning someone to
that position, if it involves the intelligence community, I
think that it needs to be under my authority. And I've made
that very, very clear. And I believe that's what the case will
be.
Now, I know Mr. Feinberg personally. I think he's a
patriot. He wants to serve his country and he brings many
talents to that. But I do not think that translates into
reporting to the White House and not being under the control of
the Director--excuse me--the national security office. Sorry,
the DNI. I ought to have that down pretty well, don't you
think, the DNI?
So I want to just assure you that that's an issue that I
have been engaged in and I have full confidence that that's the
way it will turn out.
Senator Collins. Thank you very much and I wish you all the
best.
Senator Coats. Thank you.
Chairman Burr. Senator Heinrich.
Senator Heinrich. Welcome back, Dan.
Chairman Burr. Thank you.
Senator Heinrich. I want to go back to a couple of--some of
the ground that Senator Collins covered. I think most of us
agree with your analogy. We want you to be the head coach.
We're a little concerned that sometimes the owner of the team
might rather hear from the offensive coordinator right now. So
some of these things with regard to the executive order, with
regard to Mr. Feinberg of Cerberus, the appointment of the
Director of the CIA to the committee, they open a lot of
questions for how you're going to maintain the DNI's leadership
role and the structure that has served the intelligence
community so well, after a period when we really realized
stovepipes do not help American national security.
So I want to make sure I understand what you said to
Senator Collins. Do I understand that the Executive Order that
came out, that seemed to remove the DNI from the Principals
Committee, was a recycled Bush administration Executive Order
that just didn't reflect current law and historical precedent
from 2002?
Senator Coats. That's my understanding. I wasn't there, of
course, at the time, in the writing of that. I had no
participation in that. That is my understanding. I cannot fully
say that that's what exactly happened, but what has been told
to me is that the intent was never to not have the DNI as part
of the Principals Committee, and they reassured me very quickly
that, look--they also were thinking there may be occasion when
the committee is meeting dealing with something that doesn't
involve intelligence, perhaps a flood or something like that.
Senator Heinrich. I don't think we need to be worried about
that sort of a situation. I think we do want to be reassured--
one, I'm reassured with regard to your position. I think that's
very important. I am not reassured as to the process that these
Executive Orders have been going through, given what I see as a
pretty enormous omission.
Let me move on to another issue with regard to encryption,
and we've had this conversation a lot when you were here on the
committee. It's something you're going to have to deal with, a
very evolving situation moving forward. NSA Director Admiral
Rogers called encryption ``foundational to the future.'' I
think Secretary Carter called encryption ``absolutely
essential'' with regard to the Department of Defense, and he
said, quote, ``I'm not a believer in back doors or a single
technical approach to what is a complex and complicated
problem. I'm just not. I don't think that's realistic. I don't
think that's technically accurate.'' End quote.
Other former IC leaders--Michael Hayden, Mike McConnell,
Michael Chertoff, Mike Morrell--a lot of Michaels--have all
made public statements of strong support for strong encryption
and unequivocal opposition to so-called back doors because of
the risks inherent to them.
Do you believe that strong encryption is an essential tool
for the American public and private sectors to be able to
protect personal, business, financial data from hackers,
criminals, and malicious governments?
Senator Coats. Yes, I do, and I think it's important,
obviously, for the government, all government entities. We're
all aware of the attempts to break into systems that deal with
our defense, deal with our financial resources, deal with any
number of things. So encryption has a very positive effect and
is needed.
We also have, though, the responsibility of trying to
understand what those who are not using the Internet for the
right purposes--we used to be separated by two wide oceans and
felt we were pretty safe and we could always be ready for
something that was coming our way. Now, in fractions of a
second someone can hit a key and cause incredible damage to the
United States in many, many ways, all across the spectrum.
So there are those occasions, I think, when we need to at
least think about, when we have legal authority to address a
situation where we need to get information, cooperation from
the public sector would be helpful. I think that conversation
has been going on, needs to continue going on.
You know, the CEOs of companies that are making devices and
guaranteeing their buyers encryption, they worry about their
families, they worry about their communities, they worry about
attacks on the United States. So once again, I'm not in a
policy position to decide how this happens, but I do think that
it needs to be an ongoing discussion among policymakers in
terms of what legal authorities. In the end, we follow the law,
whatever it is, regardless of our personal opinions.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman Burr. Senator Blunt.
Senator Blunt. Well, it's great to have you back and great
to have been on this committee with you and know that you have
an important and in many ways unique sense of these issues. But
also, we've watched as a committee and as a Congress the DNI
operation grow beyond what at least I initially thought it
would be. And I'm wondering, as you've had a chance to think
about this, why you think that has happened and how much of it
is a result of the Congress taxing the DNI with specific
assignments rather than letting the DNI decide which agency
should have that assignment?
Give me a sense of how you think that's developed and how
your review of the other agencies would also involve the review
of what the Director of National Intelligence and that entire
operation under your daily management would look like?
Senator Coats. Well, I've been asking the same question of
the IC in regards to this. I have found that statutory
requirements, Executive Orders, directives, have added
functions to the DNI that are mandated by the Congress or by
the Executive Branch.
Also, I think people don't understand that NCTC is a part
of the DNI. They have about 750 employees at the NCTC. I don't
hear anybody calling for not having an NCTC, but by statute
under IRTPA it was made part of the DNI. We have rotations that
come. I think about 40 percent of the people there are rotated
through.
It's much like what the military has tried to do with their
joint exercises and so forth. They want Navy to serve with the
Army at a certain point and the Air Force at a certain point so
that they are familiar with the whole and can perform better
service, they're not stovepiped. And it's somewhat similar to
what the whole joint efforts under Goldwater-Nichols was trying
to accomplish.
So it's a little more complicated than just more than just
the number, oh, there's 1,750 people out there, why do we need
that many? It's those two factors that played a major role in
that.
Having said that, it doesn't mean that we can't take a hard
look at that: How can we streamline? How can we be more
effective? But simply taking a number of people here and
putting them over there really doesn't change the dynamic if
the reason that they're here is for integration processes,
coordinating processes, and so forth.
So to finish my remarks, simply, if you're going to
integrate information that is coming from 16 other different
agencies, you have to have members there from some of those
functions that know what's coming from their function so that
they can be part of the integration solution.
Senator Blunt. And do you think the Congress has rightly or
wrongly created all those specific assignments for the DNI, as
opposed to either letting the DNI determine who had the
assignment or making an assignment to one of the specific
agencies and knowing that the DNI would be--have oversight?
Senator Coats. That's probably a good question to ask
Senator Collins. I know her initial intent, along with Senator
Lieberman and others that put this together, had to work
through the process of becoming law. I read an interesting book
about what that two and half years was like in order to achieve
that.
Many times we have a vision here and we have our staff
write it up into law and from the starting point to the ending
point we don't sometimes recognize it when it comes back with
all the decisions that have been made make adjustments so
certain entities have this authority and that authority. So
there is some fog in the air about the exact authorities of the
DNI and the responsibilities that are left to other agencies.
Clearly, an overseer, someone who has some defined authorities,
but not necessarily the authority to simply go into every
agency and deal with their operations.
Senator Blunt. I would just conclude by saying on this
topic, I think nobody is in a better position to work with the
relevant committees of Congress to try to go back now and take
a look at that law, what it was intended to do, whether it
really has achieved what it was intended to do, and the advice
you might have as you have a chance to look at this from both
perspectives of what the next DNI might be able to deal with
because of reforms and efficiencies that you built in while
have you this job. And I look forward to you being part of this
committee's activities for the next several years.
Senator Coats. Thank you. Well, it's 12 years on and it's
probably time to take a look at it and say, as I said, what
works, what doesn't and why, and what changes can we make to
make it be better.
Senator Blunt. Exactly, and I'd like for that to be one of
the things that you determine is going to be one of your major
goals.
Senator Coats. That is one of my major goals.
Chairman Burr. Senator King.
Senator King. Thank you.
Senator Coats, I would first take issue with your analogy.
I can assure you that the assistant coaches of the New England
Patriots would be astonished to think that Bill Belicheck is as
passive as you would portray him. You've got to be more
aggressive. This isn't a passive role, Senator.
Let me move on to my only concern about your nomination.
You're one of the most likable, affable, easy-going people I've
ever met. I liked traveling with you and working with you on
this committee. I'm not sure likability and affability are the
qualities I want in this position. I want somebody who is
crusty and mean and tough, because you're riding herd on 17
agencies that will always want to be going in different
directions and you're going to be reporting to a President who
may or may not want to hear what you have to say.
Can you assure me that, not only are you changing hats when
you go into this job, but you're going to be hard in terms of
your execution of this I think the second most important job in
the United States Government right now?
Senator Coats. Well, achieving the level of Bill Belicheck
may be tough. I haven't seen any other NFL coaches that achieve
the level of Bill Belicheck.
Senator King. In attitude and success.
Senator Coats. But I hear exactly what you're saying, and I
think the office demands it and I think the times demand it.
Clearly, we are in a situation--we're not in a passive
situation from a world threats standpoint. It has reached the
level that we can't afford not to go at this with everything
that we have.
Senator King. To put a point on this, the three most
serious foreign policy mistakes in my lifetime are the Bay of
Pigs, Vietnam, and the invasion of Iraq. All of those were
based upon configuring intelligence to meet the desires of the
policymakers. That's the common thread that runs through.
The pressure on you to try to meet the demands of the
policymakers--and it just happened on Saturday when allegedly
the Trump Administration, the White House, put pressure on the
Department of Homeland Security Intelligence and Analysis to
come up with a justification for the travel ban. Rather than
asking, what's the story on people from these countries, they
gave them the answer and said, give us the evidence.
Have you heard about this incident? It just was reported
this past weekend.
Senator Coats. I read that in public media, yes.
Senator King. Does that concern you?
Senator Coats. As I said in the beginning and as I will say
frequently to both the President and to the Executive Branch,
you need to fully understand my role. My role is to provide you
with the intelligence to formulate policy, not formulate
policy, not be a spokesman for any political decisions that are
made.
So yes, I have made this clear. I will continue to make
this clear. I cannot go outside the bounds of my authorities,
and I believe those authorities require me to do nothing less
than what I just said.
Senator King. A quick yes or no question: Do you need this
job?
Senator Coats. No, I don't need this job. One of the
benefits of being in your generation together, I think, as I
look at the panel here----
Senator King. I don't know what you're talking about.
[Laughter.]
That's the right answer.
Senator Coats. You and I go back all the way to the Bay of
Pigs and all the way to Vietnam. And if we didn't learn
anything from these incidents, then shame on us.
Senator King. That's right, and I want you to, because
there is going to be a moment when you're going to have to say:
I don't need this job, because I'm being asked to do something
that I shouldn't do. I'm not predicting that that will happen,
but very well that could happen.
It's happened, and this isn't about this President or any
other President. It's happened, as we've both pointed out, over
the past 40 years.
A couple of follow-up questions on the National Security
Council. I don't know where the language came from, but the
language says that where instances--you're invited where
instances pertaining to the DNI's responsibility and expertise
are to be discussed. I can't imagine a situation where that
wouldn't be the case.
I'm worried that you said, well, if it's a problem we'll
fix it. It should be fixed now. You shouldn't be welcome at
these meetings; you should be part of these meetings. I would
urge you to talk to the White House about this Executive Order
that was issued barely a week after the President was in
office, about correcting that fault.
The second fault in that was to put Steve Bannon, the
President's political adviser, onto the National Security
Council. I understand that President Bush forbade Karl Rove
from even going to National Security Council meetings, let
alone being on it. And I hope you will go back and take that
message.
Admiral Mullen says this is politicizing intelligence or
national security from the beginning, and I think that's a very
bad practice.
Senator Coats. Thank you, Senator. I'll take that message
back to the President.
Senator King. Thank you.
Chairman Burr. Senator Rubio.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
It's great to see you, Dan. Just to Senator King's concern,
I sat next to you here for a couple of years and I found you to
actually be quite an unpleasant human being on many occasions.
[Laughter.]
Senator Rubio. Of course, everyone who knows you knows that
that's not true. But we're fortunate and grateful at your
willingness to continue to serve our country.
There are three topics I wanted to touch. The first is kind
of this unusual situation that we now have regarding
counterintelligence in particular, and it's the sort of synergy
that combines the strategic placement of illegally accessed
information, the use of media organisms under the control of
foreign governments, RT and Sputnik and the like. There's
always been an element of propaganda involved in politics, but
the sort of synergy between propaganda, counterintelligence,
for purposes of interfering, influencing, and manipulating,
directing elections, policymaking in foreign countries, I think
has reached a level in many places in Europe and I believe in
the United States that's unique.
I just wanted to--and you may have touched on this earlier,
but this is a challenge that is perhaps a bit different from
what we have been dealing with in the intelligence community
over the last decade, certainly since post-9/11. That is, not
just that foreign governments have intelligence agencies that
target us, but that in fact they strategically use information
potentially to have an influence over our policymakers, our
policymaking, and potentially even our elections.
So that new dynamic; how do you view the multiple different
agencies kind of synergizing all of that to confront this new
element that I still think we're grappling with fully
understanding?
Senator Coats. I did mention earlier that the advances in
technology have upped the games of those who want to use these
techniques, and the connection of the world and the links
through the worldwide Internet have been marvelous advances for
mankind, but have extreme vulnerabilities also and can be taken
advantage of.
I think we need to educate our public to the fact that
these types of things are happening, so that in their factoring
in terms of their decisions relative to government and
government's functions and elections and so forth they're well
aware of the fact that they can't just simply believe
everything they hear and everything they read, that there are
these efforts out there to undermine who we are as a country,
undermine some of our values, cause us to lose confidence in
our government's ability to protect our privacy, et cetera.
So I do think that requires much more agility, much better
means of not only intercepting these, but putting not only the
defenses in place, but offenses, a response, so that those that
are doing this know there's a consequence to what they're
doing.
Senator Rubio. I would just add that, given the fact that
this kind of touches upon the intelligence community so
heavily, there's always this tension between allowing the
American public and, for that matter, our allies to understand
what's happening and yet allowing the intelligence community to
continue to work in ways that do not divulge more than is
necessary. That tension is always there and I think it's an
important part of the element that we should take into account
moving forward.
I really do think in many ways one of the greatest defenses
towards any efforts to interfere with our political process
from outside the country would be to allow the American people
to be aware as much as possible of what those efforts entail,
so that they understand the source and the motivation behind
things that they may be reading, seeing, et cetera, throughout
the process.
So I'm glad to hear you mention that. I think that will be
a big challenge for the entire intelligence community and I
think you'll have a key role to play in synergizing that across
all the difficult agencies that serve us in that regard.
The second issue I want to talk to you about is our
detention policy. I'm troubled by the direction it's taken. We
know for a fact and you've seen in open source reporting that a
number of former Gitmo detainees have gone on to rejoin the
fight against us. American citizens have been killed. Others
are still out there fighting against us now.
What is your view of our detention policy at the end of the
last Administration and do you have any views now about what
you would advise the President in terms of how we should--what
our detention policy for terrorists and enemy combatants should
be in the new Administration?
Senator Coats. I've had the opportunity to travel with
Senator Burr and other members of the committee, with Senator
Burr leading our contingent and before him Senator Chambliss
and Senator Feinstein. These questions have been asked of
intelligence agencies in terms of what has happened to those
that have been released from Guantanamo? Are they running a
Starbucks in Yemen or have they rejoined the fight?
A significant percentage of those have rejoined the fight.
So I know we have a high-value target individual team in place
that can look at this situation and make these determinations
as to who may or may not be released. But this is an ongoing
conflict and the last thing we want to do is tell the American
people that we're sending somebody back in to become once again
our adversary.
So I've been supporting that detention, which I think is
done in a lawful way, done in a humane way. But simply sending
everybody back home I don't think is a solution to the problem.
Senator Rubio. I know I'm out of time. Just a point of
clarification. Number one, I believe the last Starbucks in
Yemen closed last week and so that--but on a serious matter,
Robert Levinson, who is a former FBI agent, disappeared from
Kish Island, Iran, in 2007. He is believed widely to be held by
Iran, by elements of the Iranian government. His family are
from Florida and I would just ask in your new role that you
pledge to do everything possible to help locate Bob and help
bring him home.
Senator Coats. Yes, in my closing months in the Senate I
was also advised of someone else who was put in a similar
situation, this one in Turkey. And our office has been working
to try to determine what the basis of this was and to get him
released. So I'm well aware of the situation from a personal
basis in terms of our needing to address these issues.
Chairman Burr. Senator Manchin.
Senator Manchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you again, Senator. It's great serving with you, Dan,
and great to have you back.
Senator Coats. Thank you, Joe.
Senator Manchin. That being said, there's been some tough
questioning here and there's a lot of concern. We're in a
difficult time and period of our life with this Intel
Committee. I'm new to this committee, so I'm learning it as
quickly as I can. But I think people are depending on us. I
know that Senator King and myself and Senator Harris and I,
being the newest members on this side of the aisle, we're
trying to get up to speed as quickly as possible.
I think I would first ask--I think the question was asked
you by our Ranking Member about would you be able to turn over
the information and make sure we had access to the information.
You said that was your intent. Do you have the authority to
make--if we're getting what we consider slow-rolled, do you
have that authority to make sure that we're able to have that
access, whether it be any one of the 17 agencies, that we need
to conduct a full investigation?
Senator Coats. Yes. I hope I said more than intent. That's
my authority. That's my obligation.
Senator Manchin. Do you have the----
Senator Coats. Timely is part of the equation here and it
needs to be given to you completely, timely, unvarnished.
Senator Manchin. So we can count on that, basically?
Senator Coats. Yes, you can.
Senator Manchin. Right now a lot of people are frustrated.
Senator Coats. Yes, you can.
Senator Manchin. I want to make sure.
Senator Coats. I have no intention of holding anything back
from this committee, the access to this committee that they
need.
Senator Manchin. Senator, the other question I would ask is
that--when I look back at 2004 when the DNI was created, what
do you think the purpose was? Who lost faith? Who lost
confidence? Why did we think we needed a DNI to be formed? Have
you evaluated that?
Senator Coats. Well, I have done some evaluation and some
reading and some discussions with the members, some of those
who were part of that process from the beginning. I served both
with Senator Lieberman and, obviously, with Senator Collins,
and I know their role in this, and others.
Senator Manchin. We didn't reduce any of the 17 agencies.
We still have the same 17 agencies.
Senator Coats. What was happening, there was the so-called
stovepipe process. They weren't sharing information with each
other the way that they should. There was no way to integrate
it. Everybody put out their own. Some of it was dismissed, some
of it, well, we have more faith in this agency than that
agency. You didn't get a complete picture.
I kind of view this as building, making a puzzle, and
you've got 17 pieces that all need to come together. You want
the input from those 17 to be put in the right place, but you
want that all to come together into one picture. There will be
some dissenting views in there, yes. If there are dissenting
views from this agency or that agency or the different views
about the confidence level of what the intelligence is, you
need to know that.
But what the committee needs to know and what the President
and the customers in the Executive Branch need to know is that
to the best of our ability this integrated intelligence is
provided to you by all the 17 agencies pulling together every
little piece of that puzzle.
Senator Manchin. Do you think the 17 agencies believe that
you have the authority or the DNI has that authority to remove
them, remove that director or take it extremely strongly by the
President for that person to be removed if they're not doing
their job?
Senator Coats. Well, taking to the President, these are
Presidentially appointed positions.
Senator Manchin. What I'm saying is, do they look at the
DNI as having that authority, that really that's who they're
answering to, that's their boss?
Senator Coats. Well, there's collaboration authority and
there's other authorities. We had a discussion of that a little
bit earlier about the initial views of those who are putting it
together or for various reasons modified it as it moved through
the legislative process, or with the Executive Branch coming in
and making recommendations.
Senator Manchin. Do you think in that position, the DNI,
that with all of the additional news media, the 24-hour news
cycle we have, the social media, everything that's going on
today on the internet, the so-called ``fake news,'' if you
will, do you think the DNI has a responsibility to speak up and
say, this is a bunch of hogwash, there's no credibility to this
whatsoever, for the American public to figure out what's real
and what's not real?
Senator Coats. Well, we have a role, a role to provide
intelligence. But making decisions relative to policy--and we
can make analysis to provide to you, to provide to our
policymakers. But it was mentioned earlier, truth to power. Our
job is to provide the truth, and power goes to those people who
are in a position to make those determinations, make policy,
make corrections, make laws, et cetera. That's what we bring to
you, not that--we're not spokesmen.
Senator Manchin. You don't believe that basically, on the
so-called New York Times article, that whether, what side
people might be on--that there should be any clarity coming
from the DNI?
Senator Coats. We provide that information. I don't
envision myself as going on CNN every night and saying, here's
what we've done. I envision providing that information to the
policymakers to let them make that decision.
Senator Manchin. Dan, one final question. Many leaders have
identified Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and ISIS as the
top security threats to the United States. Have you chosen one
who you think is our top security threat?
Senator Coats. It's kind of an ``all of above'' category
here, I think, given the diversity of threats that we have. I
mentioned earlier on that cyber has moved very quickly, I
think, to the top in terms of--because it affects almost
everything we do in this country in terms of people's safety,
in terms of financial, commercial, our national defense,
intellectual property, and on and on you can go.
Senator Manchin. Is one most capable that you're concerned
about?
Senator Coats. You know, I would like to take that to the
closed session. I have some strong thoughts about that, but I
think that could potentially turn into something we need to do
in the closed session.
Senator Manchin. That's fair. Thank you so much, and thank
you for your continued service----
Senator Coats. Thank you.
Senator Manchin [continuing]. And willingness to serve.
Senator Coats. Thank you.
Chairman Burr. Senator Lankford.
Senator Lankford. Dan, it's absolutely great to see you
again. I'm sure you're enjoying being on that side of the desk,
because you can't get up and leave when you need to or be able
to come in and out or take a quick phone call. You're stuck
right there.
Senator Coats. Yes.
Senator Lankford. So it really is great to see you.
Senator Coats. Thank you.
Senator Lankford. I do want to follow up on a conversation
that Senator King had with you. I would say I had the same line
of questioning for you that I just want to be able to close the
loop on. You're one of the nicest people I've ever met.
Senator Coats. Thank you.
Senator Lankford. And that is to your credit, not only to
your faith and your family, but the people you've served for a
long time. But I really want the DNI to be able to be tough
when it requires to be tough and to be clear when it's time to
be clear, because the policymakers around you need clarity,
need straightforward facts, need the facts that they know that
they can trust. And we'll deal with nice in the hallway when we
can grab a bottle of water together and get a chance to chit-
chat.
But I need to hear a clarification from you again that when
the moment comes and it's crunch time you can be as tough as
you need to be.
Senator Coats. James, I think that's--Senator. I'm sorry.
Senator Lankford. ``James'' is always good.
Senator Coats. You said such nice things about me, I just
fell into our friendship.
Senator, I absolutely understand that this role demands
someone who can stand up to the pressures that will be placed
upon him, political pressures. When you have 17 agencies, not
everybody's going to agree in terms of the way to go forward,
and there needs to be a Director who can assert that authority.
I've been blessed, I have Mary Scott who backs me up with
good wise counsel. But I recognize the need for that. Given the
situation that we are facing worldwide in terms of these
threats, we don't have time just to be the nice guy. We've got
to go after it.
Senator Lankford. I have often said to people in my state
that challenge me for being too nice at times, I say I can say
``No'' with a smile still, but still be able to stand by it.
And I know you can as well. But that'll be an area you're
pushed on.
But I'll also say to you that some of the pressure won't
just be from the policymakers around you. There is a tendency
with all of us in the political world, as well as with the
intelligence community, to somewhat chase the priorities of the
headline, of the latest news story, and that becomes the IC
priority.
For many in the IC community, they saw the cyber issue a
long time ago. The media is only recently catching up to the
real threats that we face on cyber. So one of the things that
we will need from you in the days ahead is to keep the agencies
on focus to where the real threats are, not just where the
headlines are. A good for-instance of this is, it's amazing to
me how little we talk about narco-terrorism any more and we
have tens of thousands of people who die through either the
trafficking, the individuals, of drugs, or from overdoses as a
result of that, that are Americans dying all the time. It's one
of the constant threats that we have, but the news doesn't talk
about it much any more and so it somewhat drifts to the
background.
You have the responsibility to be able to make sure it
doesn't drift to the background among our intelligence
community, that we stay on focus on the threats that we face
all the time, and that when the issues come up we're on top of
them.
Let me ask a strange question for us. When we get a chance
to visit together, will we still be able to talk about the
``Coats Waste of the Week''? Will you still be focused in on
``I found an area that we need to resolve''? You know as well
as all of us do on this dais that at times working with the
Administration, if there are things that need to be fixed,
there is some other entity that sees it, but the practitioners
in the agency actually see the problem. We need help in the
oversight part of it, that when you see something in any of the
17 entities or your own office, can you help us be able to see
some of those things as well, to be able to know what to fix
legislatively?
Senator Coats. Yes, I intend to do that. I went with some
passion every week to the Senate floor 55 times to address a
``Certified Waste of the Week.'' I've already looked around a
little bit and said maybe that fits the ``Waste of the Week''
category, let's investigate that. Obviously, I would have to be
confirmed before I could start that process. But I'm committed
to doing that.
I want to just reflect basically on what you said about the
narco-terrorism. You and I have talked about this personally. I
think each of us has experienced talking to families who
tragically have lost a member of that family because of--maybe
a 17-year-old going to a party and somebody says, ``Here, try
this,'' and they end up in the hospital and many of them
perish.
It is a scourge that is cutting across every part of our
country. We have it in Indiana. You have it in your state and
every one of our members has it. It is something that can't be
ignored or pushed aside. It is undermining the very essence of
this country and it's affecting families and communities in
ways that haven't made the headlines as much as they should.
But it has to be a component of this, and intelligence does
play a role in terms of how these things are brought into our
country or within our country manufactured.
Senator Lankford. Thanks, Dan.
Chairman Burr. Senator Harris.
Senator Harris. Senator Coats, I enjoyed our time together
and thank you for that.
Senator Coats. Thank you. I did also.
Senator Harris. I noted many of my colleagues have raised
the issue of the restructuring of the National Security
Council. I'd like to talk about that a little bit more, because
I'm sure you agree it's critically important as it relates to
what we need to accomplish in terms of national security.
As has been mentioned, the President's Executive Order was
issued on January 28th, which basically put the Director of
National Intelligence in a place where he or you, if confirmed,
would not be included necessarily in the National Security
Council meetings and the Principals Committee meetings. If
confirmed as the Director of National Intelligence, do you
believe that it's critically important that you have a
permanent role in those meetings?
Senator Coats. Yes.
Senator Harris. And have you requested of the President or
any member of his Administration that that Executive Order be
modified?
Senator Coats. We have sent them information as to how to
modify it. It has not been addressed yet, but I have been
reassured over and over and over by the President and his staff
that absolutely that's what their intent was and they expect me
to be there.
Senator Harris. Have they given you a date of when it will
be modified?
Senator Coats. They have not given me a date.
Senator Harris. Is it going to happen before your
confirmation?
Senator Coats. They have not given me a date and I can't
answer--I do not know of a particular date.
Senator Harris. Now, my understanding is that the CIA
Director was--that the Executive Order was modified on January
30th.
Senator Coats. Correct.
Senator Harris. And it was modified to include the CIA
Director; is that correct?
Senator Coats. That's correct.
Senator Harris. Okay. So you mentioned earlier that the
Executive Order was basically something from the Bush era that
had been resuscitated. But it has been modified since it was
issued; you agree to that, is that correct?
Senator Coats. I think it was the 30th. I need to----
Senator Harris. Well, it's been modified since it was
issued under this Administration?
Senator Coats. No, it has not been modified.
Senator Harris. So when was the CIA Director added to that?
Senator Coats. That was part of the original.
Senator Harris. No, it wasn't.
Senator Coats. Okay. It was a press conference statement.
It was not an action that was taken.
Senator Harris. Okay, because I have a copy of that here
and it was added back to the National Security Council. So the
point is that this Bush-era document has been modified since it
was issued to include the CIA Director, but it did not put back
in DNI.
Senator Coats. I may be wrong in saying it was a Bush-era.
Senator Harris. You indicated that that's what the
Administration told you.
Senator Coats. I said my understanding was that language
was taken from a similar Executive Order issued under the Bush
Administration and that order was issued before there was a
position of DNI. And I have been told verbally that the intent
was not to leave the DNI's position off, just that someone
drafting that language didn't realize that that language didn't
include the DNI because there was no DNI at that particular
point in time.
But the bottom line is, the bottom line is is that I have
full, 100 percent confidence that I will be part of the
Principals Committee. Yes----
Senator Harris. Well, my concern is not about--on this
point, not about your qualifications. My concern is about what
environment you're walking into, and in particular whether, if
confirmed, you will actually have a seat in that body. And if
the Administration is telling you that it was some document
that was issued in a time gone by, we know that it has since
been modified to include the CIA, it did not include the Joint
Chiefs, and it has not replaced the position for which you are
here to testify.
So my concern is that there has been no indication or
assurance given that you will, if confirmed, actually be a
member of that body. And I'd like to know from you, if that
does not happen are you prepared to still assume the
responsibilities without the authority that you would have if
you were a member of that body?
Senator Coats. I'm fully prepared to assume the
responsibilities.
Senator Harris. Even if you are--even if the Executive
Order is not modified?
Senator Coats. Yes, I am. I've been assured that I have the
authority to be a member of that committee and be at that
committee in every one of its meetings.
Senator Harris. Wouldn't you agree the assurance would be
sealed if the Executive Order is modified to indicate that the
position that you now seek is actually entitled to be a part of
all meetings that relate to national security?
Senator Coats. As I've indicated before, I'm going to take
that message to the Administration that the question was raised
here. I'm perfectly comfortable with it because I trust them
and I believe what they have told me and I intend to do this.
But----
Senator Harris. I would be concerned because they've----
Senator Coats. I would like to get back to you----
Senator Harris [continuing]. Also suggested that this came
from the Bush era and we know that there have been
modifications since. I would be concerned.
But I appreciate your service and your candor.
Senator Coats. Thank you.
Senator Harris. Thank you.
Senator Coats. Thank you.
Chairman Burr. Senator Cotton.
Senator Cotton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Dan, for once again answering the call of
service.
Senator Coats. Thank you.
Senator Cotton. And Marsha, for once again standing beside
Dan as he answers the call of service. It's good to see you
back here and I congratulate you on your nomination.
We've spoken some about the unique challenges and
opportunities of trying to integrate all 17 agencies within the
intelligence community that you'll face as the DNI. You're
obviously very familiar with them. You're familiar with the
kind of intelligence products they each produce and the
priorities that they each have.
Have you any thoughts on what actions can be taken in the
very short run to make that process work more efficiently and
to produce a coherent picture for policymakers of what's
happening in the world overseas in your role as DNI?
Senator Coats. Obviously, there's a lot I need to learn. I
want to get acquainted with the various leaders of the
agencies. But as I have said before, given the nature of the
threats that we face, we need to act sooner rather than later.
I've always believed that getting the right people in place is
what can best execute the doctrine in terms of achieving the
goals that you want to achieve. So we will quickly, if
confirmed, move into that mode of filling that up.
I did recognize earlier on the previous leaders of ODNI and
the smooth transition that they have arranged by ensuring that
there's continuity during this gap period of time. But this is
one of--this rises to an early responsibility.
Senator Cotton. One of the original purposes of the ODNI
was to take the disparate kinds of intelligence that is
collected by our intelligence agencies, be it human
intelligence, bank records, satellite imagery, email and
telephone intercepts, passenger manifests, and synthesize them
all together to create a coherent picture. I think that's an
important function and it still can play that function and part
today.
One thing I have heard on occasion from my visits to the
various agencies and talking with their front-line personnel is
that the DNI over time has imposed bureaucratic mandates on the
agencies in reporting requirements, HR requirements, and so
forth, that get their core collectors or their analysts out of
the business of core collection and analyzing and spend too
much of their time focused on fulfilling those bureaucratic
mandates.
Have you seen that in your preparation and do you have any
thoughts about how you might focus the DNI on that original
mission and keep the constituent agencies of the IC focused on
their original mission?
Senator Coats. Well, I haven't had enough experience to
evaluate that. I will certainly take that as an issue to
address. But without the confirmation, I haven't had the
opportunity to engage with the other 16 agencies, except to
begin to formulate some relationships with a few of them,
starting with the Director of Central Intelligence. We've had a
number of occasions to talk to each other and share what we
think the concerns are and what we think we need to do. I think
that relationship is a very important relationship, maybe the
first important relationship. So we're already working to
establish that.
Senator Cotton. Thank you.
Finally, you mentioned the Robb-Silberman Commission in
your opening statement. That was a commission of experts tasked
to recommend ways to ensure that the intelligence community,
quote, ``is sufficiently authorized, organized, equipped,
trained, and resourced,'' end quote. What kind of lessons, if
any, would you take away from the report of the Robb-Silberman
Commission and how applicable are those today, recognizing that
we're about a decade on?
Senator Coats. Well, not all of those recommendations were
implemented. I think it's worth going back and looking at the
original intent and then the reports from Robb-Silberman. They
made a number of recommendations which were constructive.
But I just think, after 12 years or so, the agency clearly
has evolved into what it is today, but taking a look back at
where it was intended in the first place to go--and as I said,
this was a compromise piece of legislation, like most
legislation.
It was interesting, in the articles I was reading they
talked to the former directors and a total of eight people who
were in a position to make an assessment as to what exactly the
authorities of the DNI were, and there were eight different
answers. So I think that alone is a signal that we ought to
perhaps go back and look and see if we want to make some
adjustments to the law.
Now, that would have to be done in conjunction with the
Congress, of course. But at some point, I think maybe sooner
rather than later, that would be something we ought to look at.
Senator Cotton. Thank you and congratulations again.
Senator Coats. Thank you.
Chairman Burr. Senator Cornyn.
Senator Cornyn. Senator Coats, congratulations. Thank you
for answering the call to duty once more, and particularly to
your wife Marsha, who has always supported you through all your
public service. This is a great continuing contribution and I
would expect nothing less from you. So thank you for that.
I wanted to ask about two subjects, one basically to ask
for your help in your new job once confirmed. I've become
concerned that the Foreign Agent Registration Act, which
originally passed back in 1938, needs to be updated. For
example, we experienced during the time that Congress passed a
bill called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act that
once Congress voted unanimously to pass that, the President
vetoed it and Congress overrode his veto, that a foreign
government spent an untold amount of money to try to lobby the
United States Congress.
It troubled me because I'm not sure many people knew what
the source of the funds or the source of the lobbying effort
was. It just strikes me as really important, particularly in
light of the Russian activities that are going to be the
subject of investigation here, that we look at the Foreign
Agent Registration Act to see if it needs to be updated so the
Congress and the public can see where money is coming from by
foreign countries perhaps hiring lobbyists on K Street to try
to influence domestic legislation.
So I'd like to ask for your help and your office's help to
work on that.
Senator Coats. Well, you have that. I want to do that. I
think more transparency needs to be offered to the public
relative to what this is and what this isn't.
Senator Cornyn. Absolutely, absolutely.
I want to go back to a comment that was made by one of our
colleagues, my friend from Oregon, who's asked you and others
to produce the numbers of innocent Americans swept up in
intelligence-gathering operations. I just want you to talk, if
you will, briefly about all the various minimization procedures
to suppress incidental or inadvertent communications.
First of all, it is illegal to target an American citizen,
correct?
Senator Coats. That is correct.
Senator Cornyn. Without a search warrant.
Senator Coats. That is correct.
Senator Cornyn. So what we're talking about primarily is
targeting foreign intelligence persons overseas.
Senator Coats. 702 is specifically designed for that
purpose.
Senator Cornyn. And by the way, the Director of the FBI as
recently as yesterday in my presence referred to 702 as ``the
crown jewels of the intelligence community.'' Would you agree
with that characterization?
Senator Coats. I would. I would and the intelligence
community also sees it that way, the entire community.
Senator Cornyn. So we all saw what happened during the
course of the debate over the USA Freedom Act, which ultimately
I voted for. But I'm concerned that we not let the debate on
the reauthorization of Section 702 get caught up in that same
sort of hysteria, where some people were worried that the
Federal Government was spying on them when that decidedly was
untrue.
But that's history. But I want to make sure, given the
importance of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act to our intelligence community, that we make
sure that we do everything possible, first, to educate everyone
so that they understand what is authorized and what is not
authorized, and then to work with the Congress to come up with
an orderly way to make sure that these crown jewels of the
intelligence community, this Section 702, is authorized.
I want people to understand that people aren't targeted,
even foreign agents overseas, without court approval, and there
is judicial review from time to time. There is oversight and
review within the Executive Branch, and heaven knows there's a
lot of oversight here in the Congress over this, as well as in
the various intelligence agencies themselves. There are layers
of protection to make sure that no American has to worry about
their own government spying on them. In fact, every conceivable
effort is being made to prevent that and to protect the privacy
rights of Americans, which we all agree is important.
So I just ask for your continued help. Obviously, you know
a lot about the topic. But given the particular importance of
the reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, we need to work together early to try to
educate people, to try to better inform everybody involved, so
that they can be reassured that the proper balance between
privacy rights, which we all agree are important, but national
security, that exactly the right balance is struck.
Senator Coats. Senator, I couldn't agree with you more. A
lot of my colleagues have heard me talk when I was a member of
the committee about finding that balance. I think from one end
of the spectrum to the other end of the spectrum we all are on
the same page, that we cherish our private rights in this
country. They're constitutionally provided to us. We want to do
everything we can to make sure those private rights are secure.
But we also know that the Constitution requires us to
provide for the common defense, and we are under attack from a
number of sources now, that, whether it's through cyber or
whether it's through any of a number of other ways, the United
States is vulnerable to attack. And they want us to provide--to
do everything we can to keep them safe.
So finding that balance so that we don't take away private
rights and at the same time use the necessary tools to
determine what the bad guys are trying to do, that's important,
that we find that balance point so we can accomplish both of
those.
702 is designed to go after foreign bad guys. It's lawful
collection. In that process there are some incidental, let's
just call it, incidental names of Americans, potential names of
Americans. Some bad guy might have on his laptop the names of
40 Americans. So if he's targeted for something, all of a
sudden 40 American names.
Now, we've put a process in place in devising this law that
there's minimization of this. I won't go into all the details
of minimization because I can't explain it as well as others
can. But it is a process that understands that we're not
targeting these people, but incidentally they came up because
they were on this guy's email or on his phone list.
The level of oversight here is all three branches of
government, and it's significant to try to secure those
privacies. There's a query practice. But all these are
authorized. All these are under court review and oversight
review.
This is such a critical tool, I think it deserves full
transparency to the level that we can while still protecting
sources and methods and classified information. We need to
ensure that the public is not led into a situation where they
think they're, in deference to my colleague from Oregon,
sweeping up, collecting information about them.
We're trying to sort it out so that we can find out if that
bad guy in Syria or wherever is talking to someone in the
United States--we kind of want to know what they're talking
about. And there are processes there that protect rights and
sort that out.
Senator Cornyn. And there's procedures to go to court if
there is----
Senator Coats. There are procedures to go to court.
Senator Cornyn [continuing]. If content needs to be
secured, and you have to show probable cause and the court has
to issue a warrant.
Senator Coats. All of that, all of that.
I worried when I went back home on the issue of bulk
collection and metadata. Now, that's been resolved. 215 of the
Patriot Act has been--we don't do that any more. But I was
constantly asked by people back at home: What about this
megadata? And I said: No, it's not ``megadata''; it's
``metadata.'' No, no; it's ``megadata''; they're collecting
everything on us, they're listening to all our calls.
I asked then--Keith Alexander, who was head of the NSA. He
said: Well, if we were listening to everybody's calls we would
have to hire 330 million people to work 24 hours a day. That's
impossible; we're not. We're just trying to sort out the bad
guys from the good guys.
Now, that's a discussion that we don't have to have. It's
done. It's the law. We're following the law. We have a new
system now and it would be up to policymakers if they want to
make any adjustments to that.
But the 702 is such a valuable tool regarding what foreign
bad people are trying to do to Americans that I think the
intelligence community feels very strongly about it. It's your
decision. We need to provide you with the information that you
need in order to make decisions as to how to go forward with
this program.
I'm sorry I got into a sermon mode there and it's a little
bit over the top and I used up your time.
Chairman Burr. Your wife was giving you this [indicating].
Senator Coats. That wouldn't be the first time, Richard.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Burr. Senator Wyden has asked for one additional
question. Are there other members who seek additional
questions?
[No response.]
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think we do need to clarify this 702 issue, because it is
critical to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Let's
stipulate that I and every member of the Senate wants to go
after the foreign threats or, as you correctly call them,
``foreign bad guys.'' No question about it.
What has happened, because communications have gotten so
sophisticated and globally integrated, an indeterminate number
of innocent Americans have their communications being collected
under Section 702, and the government can then conduct searches
for their communications without a court order or even a
particular suspicion.
Now, to just step back, our two-part question. I asked you
if you would get the public the number of how many innocent,
law-abiding Americans are being swept under FISA 702
collection. You said yes. And then you went on to say it was
hard.
So my two-part question is: Is the answer still yes, you
will get us the number; and since we have been trying to get
this for years and years, literally, as you know from being on
the committee, will you commit now to getting us a report every
30 days until we get this number? We need it for
reauthorization and it goes right to the heart, frankly, of how
you do the balance you're talking about: foreign bad guys,
absolutely; but an indeterminate number of people are being
swept up because global communications are now so
sophisticated.
So two-part question: Will you stay with your earlier
answer and say you will get us the number of innocent Americans
who are swept up before reauthorization? That is a yes-or-no.
And before you answer yes--is the answer still yes? Is it yes
or no?
Senator Coats. Senator, I can't answer that with yes or no
because I qualified my yes with you. At least that was my
intent. Let me just explain. I qualified it because I said it
has been extremely hard to come up with that number for various
reasons, which I don't fully understand.
I said I wanted to talk to Director Rogers, I wanted to
talk to NSA, in terms of what's the problem here, why can't we,
and what is the right definition in terms of swept up and the
number. So basically, what I hope that I said--and I want to
clarify the record for this--is that I will do my best to work
to try to find out if we can get that number, but I need first
to find out about why we can't get it. I don't think anybody's
trying to withhold it from you.
Senator Wyden. Let's go to my second part. Will you commit
now to getting us a response every 30 days until we get this
question answered? Because this has gone on literally--I say
this to my friend: this has gone on for years, and it has been
sort of one reason after another. And these are law-abiding
Americans. So will you report to us every 30 days until we get
this answered? That's a yes or no.
Senator Coats. Well, I don't see that as a yes or no either
until I get the answer in terms of whether that's even
possible. I can call up Admiral Rogers once every 30 days and
say, where are we. But I would like to first understand why it
is, what the issue is here in terms of getting that exact
number. I don't want to come up with a number that once again
tells the American people something that----
Senator Wyden. Nobody's ever come up with a number here.
We've had years of stalling on this. This is a legitimate
question. You're a friend. I need to know the answer. I need to
know the answers to those questions before we have a vote in
here, because this is central to your key priority, which is
reauthorizing 702. You've got me at a low on going after the
foreign threats, but I'm not there with respect to these
answers on innocent Americans.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Burr. The Chair would ask unanimous consent to
enter into the record a letter to the committee, Senator
Warner, and myself from the Electronic Privacy Information
Center. Without objection, so ordered.
[The material referred to follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Burr. Dan, one last question. Just to make it
clear, the Executive Order, which was National Security
Presidential Memorandum No. 2, has not been amended since it
was issued, correct?
Senator Coats. That is absolutely correct.
Chairman Burr. There was a question. It wasn't clear in my
mind exactly how it was answered, and I just wanted to make
sure that we cleared the record.
Senator Coats. I'm glad you made that clarification, yes.
Chairman Burr. At this time, the open hearing will adjourn
and we will reconvene in a closed hearing upstairs.
[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
Supplemental Material
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]