Floor Speech on ODNI Reform

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 daises from the distinguished Vice Chairman, and an ODNI aide came in to brief us about a new fusion cell they had created in the fight against the Islamic state. And one of our senior members Dan Coats, who later himself became the DNI, observed that he was concerned 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 preform some important functions; we may not agree on every single particular, I think many of those functions could be performed elsewhere. But I've had the 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 began through the annual Intelligence Authorization Act and that Director Gabbard started to carry out, I think that's a win for our national security.

You know, 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 iron clad 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 have began. 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 a few dozen, around 45 or 50, career officers are in fact returning to their home agencies. I think that's a step in the right direction. That's less than 5% of the DNI's personnel. I might put a zero after that five, I might put a seven in front of that five, 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 could benefit Jay Clayton once he's confirmed. Mr. Clayton will be able to inherit an organization that's 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 communities important work, not hindering it.

A third point, as President Trump has said Jay Clayton is a patriot, and he'll 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's 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 lighting speed as well. The FBI finished his background check in record time, the intelligence community and 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's regrettable that Minority Leader Schumer and Minority Leader Jeffries have linked together the 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, Mr. President, I do in fact object.