BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was formed after the 9/11 attacks, understandably, to try to address some of the failures that led to those attacks. Unfortunately, I think we can now assess, a couple of decades on, that it is something of a failed experiment itself.
I remember my first days on the Intelligence Committee, when I sat far down the dais from the distinguished vice chairman, and an ODNI aide came in to brief us about a new fusion cell they had created to fight against the Islamic State. And one of our senior members, Dan Coats, who later himself became the DNI, observed that he was concerned that, with the growing bureaucracy at the ODNI, pretty soon they would need a fusion cell for their fusion cells.
Now, the vice chairman and I largely agree that the ODNI needs to be downsized and streamlined, that it does perform some important functions. We may not agree on every single particular. I think many of those functions could be performed elsewhere.
But I have had an opportunity to speak, in the last few days, with Acting Director Pulte. He agrees in those general terms with us that we need to return the ODNI to its original size, scope, and mission by spinning off some of these functional centers and sending intelligence officers who have been detailed there back to their home Agencies so they can do actual intelligence work. And if he continues the work that the vice chairman and I have begun through the annual Intelligence Authorization Act and that Director Gabbard started to carry out, I think that is a win for our national security.
The vice chairman cited various media reports about Director Pulte. I can't comment on all of them. It won't shock anyone to know that I don't take CNN or the Washington Post as ironclad as the Lord's Scripture. But there is one media report that I will comment on, since I discussed it with Director Pulte: the claim that mass firings had begun. That is not accurate. He informed me that, yes, a small handful of front-office personnel are leaving Federal employment, which is not at all uncommon when a senior leader leaves an Agency or one comes into an Agency. But a small handful--maybe counted on one hand, maybe two hands. He also said that a few dozen--around 45 or 50--career officers are, in fact, returning to their home Agencies. I think that is a step in the right direction. It is less than 5 percent of the DNI's personnel. I might put a zero after that 5. I might put a 7 in front of that 5 in terms of how many personnel need to go back to their home Agencies.
A second point, if Director Pulte can, in fact, take these steps in the right direction, I think that can benefit Jay Clayton, once he is confirmed. Mr. Clayton will be able to inherit an organization that has already been downsized, and he can hit the ground running on day one to continue that work and to ensure that the DNI is promoting our intelligence community's important work, not hindering it.
A third point, as President Trump has said, Jay Clayton is a patriot, and he will make a great DNI once confirmed. I intend to hold a hearing for Mr. Clayton in the weeks ahead. As the vice chairman knows, it is not just our committee that moved at a very rapid pace to confirm Mr. Clayton to this new post. I want to thank President Trump and the Trump administration for moving at lightning speed as well. The FBI finished its background check in record time. The intelligence community and the Department of Justice helped Mr. Clayton through hundreds of advanced policy questions in record time. Even the President's own White House Counsel's Office completed Mr. Clayton's work in record time.
Of course, the backdrop here is the lapse in authorization for section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The vice chairman and I have worked well together to craft a bill that can get 60 votes in the Senate, 218 or more votes in the House. I wish we could simply pass that bill. I think it is regrettable that Minority Leader Schumer and Minority Leader Jeffries have linked together reauthorization of section 702 with the confirmation of an official to a position that really has very little to do with section 702 or, for that matter, with operational activities of the intelligence community at large.
So with those observations, I do, in fact, object.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT