Good morning. This hearing will come to order. I want to welcome all of you to today's hearing on the nomination of Mr. Jay Clayton to be the director of national intelligence.
Before we begin, I would also like to recognize the devastating loss we all suffered over the weekend. On behalf of this committee, I pay tribute to our former colleague, Lindsey Graham. Though Lindsey didn't serve on the Intelligence Committee, as a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was a part of our extended family and he was obviously a champion for intelligence officers just as he was for our troops. He was a true partner on issues such as FISA, FBI, and DOJ oversight.
Lindsey ensured the intelligence community had the resources needed to confront our adversaries. Lindsey was a true patriot who led with courage, loyalty, and relentless optimism during his time both as an airman in the Air Force and in the United States Congress.
In remembrance of Senator Lindsey Graham's lifetime of service, I invite the members of this committee to honor our colleague and friend by living up to the example he set and carrying forward his love for God and for country. We also welcome his sister and new senator, Darlene, who we all had the occasion to meet yesterday and who I know will carry forward his legacy in a way that would make him immensely proud, as he always was proud of his young sister.
Today's hearing is an opportunity to consider Mr. Clayton's qualifications. So, I'd like to welcome him and his wife Gretchen to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Mr. Clayton, thank you for once again answering the call to public service. To your family and loved ones, including those watching from home, thank you for your support during this process. I want to state for the record that Mr. Clayton has provided answers to our standard 40-page committee questionnaire. He has answered in writing more than 200 advanced questions for the record as well. He has completed his FBI background investigation. He has met with most members of this committee and he has provided more than 5 years of tax returns. This is no small feat, but was helped in large part by the fact that this was his third time through the process. I want to thank all of those persons and organizations who worked to move his nomination at very fast speeds.
That includes our committee staff, the staff at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the FBI, the Office of Government Ethics, and the White House Counsel's Office.
I'd also like to offer my prayers to outgoing Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's husband Abraham as he battles cancer and thank Miss Gabbard for her efforts to streamline the ODNI as she turns understandably to her husband's care. This committee is grateful for her decades of service to the country both in uniform and as a civilian. And I also want to take a moment to thank Bill Pye for his leadership to date as the acting director of national intelligence. The additional steps he's taken to right-size the Office of the DNI will help Mr. Clayton be successful on day one of assuming this position. Mr. Pye has been highly communicative and engaged with me and my staff during his tenure for which I am grateful.
Mr. Clayton, it's my understanding that you intend to finish Miss Gabbard's work to return the ODNI to its original size, scope, and mission. I've long said that the right number of staff at the ODNI would number in the dozens, maybe a couple hundred at the maximum, but certainly not the thousands of recent years. Congress intended the ODNI to be a lean and efficient organization to keep bureaucratic intelligence agencies at bay. But some 20 years later, the ODNI has unfortunately become yet another bloated agency that incentivizes bureaucratic makework as opposed to genuine intelligence work.
Mr. Clayton, given your many years as a seasoned professional in both government and private practice, I'm eager to hear how your experiences will inform your plans to return the ODNI to those roots. I look forward to working with you to provide any legislative relief that you deem necessary, such as transferring centers or functions to other government agencies, because while many functions that are needful occur at the ODNI, they don't necessarily need to be occurring there.
Additionally, I'm interested in hearing about your efforts to advance America's national security in your current role as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. As US Attorney, Mr. Clayton has gone after some of the worst of the worst national security threats, including foreign enemies who put innocent Americans at risk and have American blood on their hands. For example, he's overseen the indictment of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro, secured the guilty plea of Venezuelan General Hugo Carvajal, and overseen the prosecution of an Iran-backed terrorist connected to multiple attempted terror attacks in the United States. Though these are just a few high-profile cases, let me state for the record that Mr. Clayton has worked hand-in-glove with our intelligence agencies and counterterrorism personnel to lock up criminals who threaten our national security. I commend him and all those involved for this important work. I'm interested in hearing from the nominee how he plans to apply this experience as a leader of the intelligence community.
Mr. Clayton, in addition to streamlining the ODNI, foremost on your to-do list will be helping refocus the intelligence community on operations by being a vocal and uncompromising advocate for its resources. If confirmed, I'll expect you to make the case to the intelligence and appropriations committees for why the funding requests in a supplemental funding bill are so vital. As most of us know, the intelligence community operations are at an all-time high with great successes. While the Pentagon received money from the working families tax cut, the intelligence community did not. I'll say here publicly what I wrote to acting director Pye and director Radcliffe last month: I do not want to see any more reprogramming requests that borrow from one operational account to fund another. There are plenty of underperforming and underexecuting programs across the intelligence community that can be a biller for needful operations until Congress can pass supplemental appropriations bills.
Now, before I turn it over to the vice chairman, I'd like to put on the record that in all my experiences with Mr. Clayton, his reputation as someone who operated with morality, decency, and integrity has proven to be true. The job Mr. Clayton has been nominated for today is not one which he sought, but one which he has been gracious enough to take on. I'm confident that by the end of the day, my colleagues will join me in seeking to get Mr. Clayton's nomination across the finish line. I now recognize the vice chairman for his opening remarks.
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just echo what you said at the beginning of this hearing in terms of the great loss we all feel on both sides of the aisle of the passing of our friend Lindsey Graham. And as we commented yesterday, he was not on this committee, but he sure as hell acted like he was on this committee on many times. Mr. Clayton, Jay, it's good to see you again, and it was great to have the opportunity to meet your wife, Gretchen, in the anteroom. And I'm going to start with where the chairman started.
And I have addressed this before, but the process we've gone through to get you before this committee is really pretty remarkable. I can't think of any other instance in the history of this committee where a president sends a nominee up and then in a bipartisan way we say we really want to move heaven and earth to get this nominee moving through quickly because the importance of the position, and then the president decided that the Senate was moving too fast on his own nominee and pulls that nominee for a while, pulls down the hearing, and in the meantime blows up the FISA reauthorization process which is critically important. Now I know you had nothing to do with that and were probably as surprised as many of us. So I guess congratulations about getting finally in front of this committee.
I also want to thank you for your partnership when you were SEC chairman and when we worked on investments in human capital. But as I when I last talked to you, this job is very different than anything I think you've done in your long career. And I'll have certain expectations of how you would perform the duties of DNI. These are expectations I make clear to all IC principals throughout my time on this committee, regardless of administration.
First and foremost, as most know, this position of DNI was created after the events of 9/11. And as such, and Senator Collins had a large role in creating this position, it requires the DNI have extensive national security qualifications. Because if you get this job, you're going to have intimacy with all of the nation's top closely guarded secrets. Now, I know you've served in some very distinguished positions, SEC chairman, US attorney for the Southern District. I look forward to hearing how those positions will meet that qualification of extensive national security experience.
Second, as I've mentioned, the DNI has literally access to all our nation's secrets, things that are limited only to the Gang of Eight here in Congress. And I will hope that you will treat this sensitive information with the kind of respect and security it deserves. As members know, one of my greatest concerns with President Trump's appointment of Mr. Pye as acting DNI is that Mr. Pye had no national security experience. And if anything, at what seemed to be his one qualification, he had a demonstrated record of releasing private confidential mortgage information so we could weaponize it for political purposes. I can't think of a less qualified individual to be anywhere close to the DNI's role.
In fact, there's already reporting about Mr. Pye's plan to do what intelligence on elections, some that's based on, and how we might misuse some of that on some of our most sensitive sources. And I just don't understand how Mr. Pye, and one of the reasons why I am anxious to get a permanent DNI, can end up figuring out what is appropriate or not appropriate since he's been in the job for only 3 weeks.
And again, with no national security experience, our nation's security depends on our ability to protect secrets and protect the people who gather those secrets, whether it's allies, partners, or assets we have recruited. Carelessly handling that information ultimately makes our country less safe.
Lastly, I urge you to stand strong in protecting the most sacred of the IC principles, speaking truth to power. This commitment to truth is literally carved in stone at the CIA's headquarters. It is fundamental to not only the functioning and credibility of the IC, but also to the security of the American people. We have seen what happens when policymakers are allowed to shade intelligence for political reasons. It results in endless wars, tens of billions of dollars in wasted taxpayer dollars, and literally thousands of dead Americans.
Unfortunately, we have seen repeated attempts by this administration to politicize the IC. From a senior administration official telling IC officers to change their assessment because he feared it would make the president look bad. That's the absolute epitome of undermining speaking truth to power. To the former DNI literally inserting herself into an active domestic law enforcement action in Fulton County and seizing voting machines in Puerto Rico. Nothing within the gambit of the DNI, it's about foreign intelligence and foreign interference. And in fact, recent reports suggest that the IC's annual analytic objective survey, where they go out to the whole IC community and say, 'How do you think things are going?' shows a substantial increase in the number of IC employees who say they are concerned about the intelligence analysis being undermined by political interference.
Again, the opposite of why your role was created and the opposite of what the goals of the IC should be. I hope that should you be confirmed, you will make it clear that this kind of politicization has no place in the intelligence community. And I ask that you treat the thousands of IC career staff who will be under your charge with the kind of respect and dignity they deserve. They are brave men and women who've signed up to serve our country and they never get the recognition that our men and women in uniform get, but they do so much to protect our nation. And as I said at the outset, this is a very different job than any you've had in the past. And in some ways, I believe it's more critical than being SEC chair or US attorney because in many ways, the IC is our first line of defense in terms of keeping our country safe.
In order to make sure we keep our country safe, the IC must also maintain the trust and credibility with the American people, which means objective analysis, keeping itself free from politicization. I look forward to your answers. Congratulations again, and I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. I now recognize Senator Rounds, who would like to say a few words about Mr. Clayton.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today I have the privilege of introducing the honorable Jay Clayton, President Trump's nominee to serve as the next director of national intelligence. I first met Jay through my role on the Banking Committee when he was nominated by President Trump and confirmed by the Senate to be chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2017. He's a consummate professional with a distinguished career in both the private and public sectors. The Senate previously confirmed him on a bipartisan basis to serve as the SEC chair, and I'd like to think we were proven correct in judging his character the first time around. It's no surprise President Trump would select him to serve in his cabinet. The DNI has to be a trusted, unbiased voice to provide ongoing intelligence to the president. I believe Jay will do great work in this role.
Jay is an accomplished lawyer with decades of experience and he currently holds one of the most high-profile and demanding posts in the Department of Justice as the US attorney for the Southern District of New York. He made the most of his time in New York by prosecuting some of America's worst enemies and threats to our national security. Muhammad al-Sadia, the Iranian-Iraqi national responsible for over a dozen terrorist attacks in Europe and two attempted attacks on America. Nicolas Maduro and other narco-terrorists. These efforts required extensive coordination with the intelligence community and larger national security enterprise including the Department of Justice, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If confirmed, Jay's experience at the helm in New York will serve him well as DNI.
Mr. Clayton chaired the SEC through a period of significant uncertainty for financial markets during the depths of the COVID-19 epidemic in 2020. His success in leadership roles at the SEC and DOJ is strong evidence of his ability to be an effective coordinator as the director of national intelligence. Many of the most pressing national security threats we face today are crosscutting issues that involve technology and economics and go beyond the IC's traditional focus on foreign military capabilities and foreign leadership intentions.
Jay's time at the SEC and in the private sector has given him valuable experience with issues that the DNI faces on a daily basis: cyber threats from state and non-state actors, illicit finance, economic competition with China, and the rapid adoption of artificial intelligence by both our adversaries and our own intelligence community. He brings valuable insight into each of these areas that will serve him and our country well. Jay holds a TS/SCI clearance and has worked in highly classified compartmented environments requiring discretion and security compliance. As a result, he knows firsthand the critical importance of Section 702 and FISA. His extensive experience working across agencies is a quality needed as DNI. He has a working relationship with CIA Director Radcliffe that will make for a smooth transition into this leadership role. While Jay may not have served in the intelligence community, he has the right mix of practical experience working with the IC, including experience with the Justice Department and coordination with the Department of the Treasury. His professional background is important to the growing demands being placed upon the IC related to technology and economic competition.
Further, his diverse experience in the private sector, the SEC, and as a US attorney in a very active district give him the wealth of management, leadership, and organizational experience to succeed in coordinating with all of the different equities that make up the intelligence community. In closing, I offer my strong endorsement for Mr. Clayton to serve as the next director of national intelligence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Rounds. Mr. Clayton, before we move to your opening statement, I need to ask you the five standard questions the committee poses to each nominee who appears before us. A simple yes or no answer for the record will suffice. One, do you agree to appear before the committee here or in other venues when invited?
Two, if confirmed, do you agree to send officials from your office to appear before the committee and designated staff when invited?
Three, do you agree to provide documents or any other materials requested by the committee in order for it to carry out its oversight and legislative responsibilities?
Four, will you ensure that your office and your staff provide such material to the committee when requested?
Five, do you agree to inform and fully brief to the fullest extent possible all members of this committee of intelligence activities and covert actions rather than only the chairman and the vice chairman?
Thank you very much. After our hearing today, it's my intention to convene a committee business meeting early next week to vote on the nomination of Mr. Clayton and report it to the Senate for a floor vote. Mr. Clayton will now proceed to your opening statement after which I will recognize members by seniority before the gavel and by arrival after the gavel for five minutes each. Mr. Clayton, the floor is yours.
Thank you, Chairman Cotton. Vice, you move the mic a little closer. How's this? Okay. Thank you, Chairman Cotton, Vice Chairman Warner, and the distinguished members of the committee. I am honored to appear before you today as the nominee to be the director of national intelligence. I would like to thank President Trump for placing his continued trust and confidence in me. I am humbled by this nomination and grateful for the opportunity to continue serving our country. I also want to thank my wife Gretchen and our children for their support and their commitment to public service. I also thank the many women and men I have worked with at the SEC and the DOJ. Together, we have built great teams that have delivered for the American people.
Senator Rounds, I thank you for those very kind words and for your commitment to the people of South Dakota and our country. I have been fortunate to serve in a broad range of leadership roles in both the public and private sectors. Each position has presented challenges and opportunities. If confirmed, I intend to approach the DNI role in the same way I have approached these roles: mission-focused and team-oriented, taking on the challenges and seizing the opportunities.
The mission of the director of national intelligence is clear: to ensure that the policymakers and institutions that the intelligence community serves, especially the president, our military leaders, and Congress, receive the best possible intelligence in a timely, objective, and independent manner. That mission and obligation will be front of mind every day. If confirmed, I will work to strengthen the coordination and communication between the intelligence community and the people we serve. I will focus on enhancing the trust of the American people in the ODNI, the intelligence community, and our federal government generally. I will have an open door and walk the halls policy. This has proven invaluable. I also look forward to engaging with this committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence frequently.
I am confident that my experience has prepared me for this role, including my experience leading and improving large organizations. Large multi-faceted organizations like our intelligence community work well when they have one, a commitment to the mission; two, clear strategic objectives that further that mission; and three, metrics that facilitate the assessment and improvement of their operations. I intend to work with the members of this committee to develop all three of those.
A few specifics on my national security experience. As the US attorney for the Southern District of New York, I've gained significant national security experience, including in matters involving foreign terrorist organizations, counter-espionage, money laundering, bribery, and the abuse of our communications platforms to create and sow distrust. We interact with US intelligence community and counterterrorism officials continuously on dozens of important national security matters. In addition, I've acted as the principal liaison with senior officials at Treasury, State, and the Department of War on matters of national security. As chairman of the SEC, I advised the intelligence community on various matters and directly confronted issues with national security implications, notably leading our cybersecurity and cyber resilience for critical infrastructure in our financial services sector, combating Chinese influence on and exploitation of our markets, and importantly maintaining economic stability and confidence in our markets during the COVID-19 shutdowns.
In the private sector, I also engaged in a broad range of national security matters, including with officials from the Federal Reserve, the Department of Justice, and Congress. As an example, between my time at the SEC and my return to government at the Southern District, I testified before the House China Select Committee. Across these roles, I saw firsthand how judgment, discipline, integrity, and most importantly, effective communication and cooperation across different branches of government are essential to our national security. If confirmed, I will have those principles front of mind every day. Thank you for your time and I look forward to your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Clayton. You do indeed have a lot of experience leading large organizations, though I hope by the end of your tenure in two and a half years at the DNI, you can add some experience leading small organizations or at least a much smaller one. As I observed in my opening remarks and you mentioned in yours, in your current position as the US attorney for the Southern District of New York, you've taken part in a number of national security-related investigations, including the prosecution of terrorists, narco-traffickers, and others who wish to do harm to the United States and our citizens. I think it's probably important for many viewers to know that the Southern District may be the number one national security-related US attorney's office in the country. Can you speak to your interaction specifically with the intelligence community as part of these investigations and how critical intelligence community collection was for informing the evidence you obtained to pursue convictions in these cases?
Thank you. The short answer is extremely critical. And in the examples that you mentioned, the examples that Senator Rounds mentioned, whether it's Maduro and Carvajal, whether it's Alsadi, the well, I'll just say multifaceted terrorists who we've recently captured, and our drug interdiction efforts, combating cartels and the flow of deadly drugs. The intelligence community is essential to our prosecutions in all of those cases. If I may, it's the only game in town. The United States intelligence community, combating those global threats is essential, not just for the US, but as was mentioned in Senator Rounds' remarks, keeping our European colleagues safe as well.
Thank you. You also mentioned your time at the SEC. Now, in my neck of the woods, that's the country's best football conference, but here we're talking about the Securities and Exchange Commission. I think most observers would think, well, you know, that's for the stock markets and a Wall Street lawyer goes in and hopefully gets fees down and markets do well and combats fraud and maybe tackles new issues like cryptocurrency. But I think some viewers would be surprised at the amount of national security-related matters you had to confront at the SEC as well. Could you just go into a little bit more detail on that front too?
Sure. Starting at the top, national security and economic security are synonymous. National security and market function and market integrity are synonymous. Our financial infrastructure is essential to our security as a nation. Going beyond that, understanding the economic implications of actions and the likely knock-on effects is a big part of what I believe the intelligence community should be providing to the consumers of information. Understanding the economic consequences of actions is an essential part of intelligence and it's something that I engaged in frequently at the SEC.
And while the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was set up in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and in the context of wars in the Middle East, isn't that particularly true as we think about our struggle for mastery with China and also checking Russian aggression around the world, that economic matters are vitally important when we're facing traditional nation-state actors like Russia and China.
Senator Cotton, Chair Cotton, I could not agree more that our adversaries not only look at kinetic and other what I would call traditional ways to harm Americans, they look at economic ways to harm Americans.
Thank you. The vice chairman alluded to an address the president will apparently be giving tomorrow night that may or may not be based on some kind of intelligence that's going to be declassified. To what degree, if any, have you been involved in the process for what may be discussed by the president tomorrow night?
I'm not involved in that.
Because you're not currently the director of national intelligence.
And in fact, to be involved would violate a core principle, which is you take no actions that would presume your confirmation.
That I couldn't have said it better.
Thank you for helping me establish that fact.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I said repeatedly, if you're confirmed, you're going to make sure that you speak truth to power. And that means even if the truth is not the preferred narrative that somebody wants to hear. So, let me just ask you, should be a simple question. Do you deny that Joe Biden won the 2020 election?
Senator, I'm not an election denier. Joe Biden was certified as the president of the United States.
Election denial is something we cannot have. So I will take that as you do not deny that Joe Biden won the 2020 election.
Yeah, I'm not. I think let me just be clear. We have substantial work to do and I've made it in improving our electoral processes. It's part of national security. And I feel strongly about that.
One of the things that again this will come around perhaps to what's happening tomorrow night as well. Classified information is critical. If we violate classified information, that loses us allies. It makes us less strong. I fear that certain countries already are not sharing as much information with us because of some of the things that have happened. So, let me ask you some straightforward questions. If confirmed, you commit to protecting all classified information in accordance with established rules and procedures.
If confirmed, you commit to following established process and procedures when it comes to declassifying information.
And that will then lead to the next because if you're going to follow official purposes, you cannot declassify information for political purposes. Will you promise that you will not do that?
Senator, I promise that my declassification exercises will be consistent with the role and I believe that there are a number of protections in place across the intelligence community to ensure that intelligence is not used for political purposes. And I intend to adhere to those.
Well, that is, you know, in many ways, at least for me, that is the nub of this hearing.
In preparing for this hearing, I have analyzed the procedures that are in place for declassification and other actions that you would take as the director of national intelligence. And I look forward to consulting with the people inside the intelligence community and at the ODNI to ensure that we adhere to those principles.
It's critically important because again we may see some of this tomorrow night or not. But if we go around those established procedures, we could burn sources and methods. We could lose allies. The ramifications are so grave and it has been treated in such a cavalier way that it's really extraordinarily upsetting to me. Along with classified information comes the analytic tool. One of the things that I pointed out in the recent IC annual survey, the number of IC analysts that are concerned that their work may be threatened by politicization or if you don't reach the right conclusion that completely undermines the basis of what the intelligence community is set up with. So if confirmed you commit that the ODNI's decisions and analysis will remain free from political pressure and conspiracy theories.
Yeah. Senator, the role is to ensure that you, the president in particular, the members of the cabinet receive the best possible intelligence product available. And I do commit to do that. And I do commit to do that.
Yeah. If you could bring your the whole box.
I need a space for the papers.
I can't stress enough, you know, if the IC workforce feels they're going to get political blowback or get fired, which we have seen because they reach a conclusion that may not be what certain folks in the administration want to hear. That undermines the whole work of the whole community.
If I could jump in on that and I want to say that my experience at the SEC, my experience at the DOJ is that the people who have worked for me have great confidence that they can speak to me in a candid and free from any worry that what they say to me in their professional capacity is going to result in any kind of disagreement. I would say any kind of friction beyond the normal toing and throwing that you have in any organization.
I will say let me add my comment to what Senator Rounds said in working with you at the SEC. I found that was how you operated and particularly in taking on certain issues that might not have been politically popular. This is such a different role and I am so concerned that whoever ends up in this role is going to be under a set of pressures that may be unprecedented and we're going to need somebody extraordinarily strong. And come to my last set of questions and that is around election integrity.
This job was set up to look at foreign interference in our elections. So, it was more than stunning to me when the former director, Director Gabbard, showed up at a domestic, I believe, political interference activities in Fulton County. We're coming into election season. I want to make sure you are on the record. If confirmed, you will commit you will not interfere with or comment inappropriately on US elections.
Senator, you outlined the role correctly. The role is to deal with foreign interference in US elections, which is something I'm gravely concerned about, but that's the role.
And finally, we cannot have the DNI trying to put his or her hands on the scales in terms of tipping the outcome of any American election. Will you commit to not put those hands on the scales?
The role of the intelligence community is to provide information, not to engage in policy or those things. So, yes.
Thank you. I agree that the role is very different, but I think that's true of most government roles. And we never quite know how people were performing them and some of us have been very satisfied with nominees we've confirmed in both parties and some have been dissatisfied. But, you know, look at our former chairman, Marco Rubio. Being a senator, I think we can all agree, is very different from being the secretary of state or being the national security adviser. And he's pitching a near perfect game in those roles, if you ask me. But you can't reason by analogy. You've been a Wall Street lawyer for a long time. How long have you been a lawyer?
Goodness, 36 years. 33 years.
And so you're governed by attorney-client privilege. That's not classified material, but it is required you as an ethical obligation. Have you ever had any issue in handing attorney-client material?
And the material you're handling in Wall Street. I mean, you're talking about market-moving material, millions or billions of dollars,
billions, and probably in aggregate trillions of dollars of information that you have to be very careful not to allow to slip
or very sensitive personal information about clients as well. And no issues ever in the past dealing with those.
Thank you, Senator Collins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Clayton. Mr. Clayton, I want to give you a little bit of history of the ODNI. I was a co-author of the legislation that created the director of national intelligence along with Senator Joe Lieberman, Congresswoman Jane Harman, and Congressman Pete Hoekstra in the House. And it came about following hearings that we had and extensive analysis of a failure of the more than 18 intelligence agencies to share vital information, information that perhaps could have allowed the dots to be connected and the horrific terrorist attack of 9/11 to have been discovered and deterred.
I'll never forget a conversation that I had with Secretary of State Colin Powell. He said, 'Our intelligence community needed an empowered quarterback to make sure that there was sharing of information and a collective collaborative approach to intelligence. Instead, what we had was a very siloed approach.' And that's why we worked so hard to draft the Terrorist Prevention and Intelligence Reform Act that created the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the NCTC, the National Counterterrorism Center, which would bring agencies together.
So I understand that ODNI has grown far bigger than we ever would have envisioned when we wrote that law. But I am deeply disturbed that some administration officials and indeed some senators have called for not just a reduction in the size of ODNI but that we abolish it altogether. There remains a critical purpose and mission for ODNI to lead and manage the 18 separate intelligence agencies with
worldwide operations that include space, cyber, and human intelligence domains. Do you commit to maintaining the vital role of ODNI and its NCTC?
The short answer, and I'd like to elaborate, is yes, I do. Having seen this from the outside now in my roles, and also preparing to hopefully take on this role, if we didn't have this role, we'd have to invent it, because there needs to be a focal point for coordination across the other 17 intelligence agencies. There needs to be a place of oversight, a place to resolve conflict. I look at it as a board of directors role, and to the extent that the ODNI has gotten into operations or started to play the roles of some of those other agencies, it probably should pull back, because it's difficult to be both operations and oversight. But I think an oversight role is important.
Thank you. The second issue I want to bring up with you is the anomalous health incidents, also known as Havana syndrome, that have occurred since 2016 and caused, in some cases, career-ending disabilities for our intelligence, our defense, our State Department employees. The intelligence community initially took these attacks and care for victims seriously. However, for various reasons, this quickly seemed to turn into a very dismissive attitude throughout the federal government with little forward progress. This led Senator Gillibrand and I to co-author the Havana Act of 2021 to support the victims who are not receiving care nor compensation. I have been frustrated over the past few years across both the Biden administration and the Trump administration by the excuses provided and misinterpretations of AHI attacks and the slow implementation of Senator Gillibrand's and my bill. Last week, Tulsi Gabbard rescinded two previous intelligence community assessments and started to reassess both previous and new intelligence related to AHI. It's critical that we know about possible foreign weapon capabilities and how to keep our hardworking personnel who are stationed in dangerous parts of the world safe from these dangerous attacks. But forward movement remains very slow. The DNI confirms, it's your job to confirm that intelligence is objective, timely, and independent of political considerations and based on all available sources. So with recent efforts to re-energize the research on the causes and attribution of these devastating attacks on our personnel, do you plan to continue these efforts?
Well, I'm not privy, but I certainly plan to engage with you and Senator Gillibrand on this issue, and I'm happy to do so. I look forward to future discussions. There's a lot of history here. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Collins. No stronger leader on national security, not just on this committee, but your work on the HSGAC committee and especially the appropriations committee, like our friend Lindsey Graham. The troops and intelligence officers have no better friends than Senator Collins. Thank you for your work. Senator Wyden.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Clayton, according to the press reports, the FBI director spent eight hours last Friday at the White House investigating journalists. My view is this is a flagrant attack on journalists and the First Amendment under the direction apparently of the Trump administration. When were you directed to issue subpoenas to the journalists, and by whom?
Senator, I believe you're referring to the reporting around the subpoenas relating to...
The subpoenas you signed.
The subpoenas that I signed, those subpoenas are in connection with an ongoing national security investigation. I'm happy to talk to you and this committee about our approach to the First Amendment and our efforts in all cases to limit to the greatest extent possible any intrusion into the operation of the free press. I am absolutely committed to and respect our First Amendment and the role of the press.
So let me ask you this. It's not even clear that the subpoenas that you signed followed the administration's policy, which requires the government to first make all reasonable attempts to obtain information from other sources. What specific actions did you take before you signed the subpoenas?
I can tell you that in all of these cases, we, and not just one person, and this is the way I operate, I operate by asking my team, 'What do you think?' Any action in this regard, you can be assured that it was a consultative exercise with the career prosecutors in my office.
So that's what you did beforehand to satisfy yourself that this was important to do, to send these journalists the subpoena and go to their house...
To issue the subpoenas. But let me say that this is... I don't want to get into this in too great a detail because it's inappropriate.
I don't want to get into details. I just want to find out what went on.
We followed the processes that we're required to follow.
Let me go to the question of elections. You've claimed in the past that vote by mail is tainted, and I haven't seen any evidence of this. These are your exact quotations. You talked about dishonesty in mail-in voting, and at one point you had talked specifically about a group that was doing it. I think it would be very helpful to get a sense of who you're talking about. You said, and I quote, 'One group is using mail-in voting dishonestly.' So you basically said you got a group out there who are election bandits. Who are we talking about?
Now, I would like to see where you're pulling those quotes from, because I've been very careful in my words on this. I've been very careful. Look, we... election integrity... I'd like to see the whole passage.
Yeah, no, and I'm happy to answer. But let me tell you that there are two parts to this. One is access, which is extremely important. Access to the ballot is something that I know this body, many people, have worked hard for years and years. The other one is integrity. I'm a big believer that we can have better access than we've ever had before and better integrity than we've ever had before. And some of the constructs around our election, the integrity can be greatly improved.
Well, I want to see it because I want to know the names of the people that you're calling dishonest, because I'm the nation's first senator elected by mail. The second senator was a Republican, and we don't believe that this is tainted by fraud. And I have time for one more question. You said that the country was well served by this agreement that Donald Trump is not going to get audited in terms of his taxes. He went through the whole process. Tell me if you continue to support that position, that you believe that the president of the United States should be the only person in the country who's exempt from audit.
I certainly do not believe that the president of the United States should be the only person in the country who is exempt from audit in terms of...
Do you think he should be exempt from audits? That's a yes or no question.
In terms of that specific thing, that is now a matter of litigation, and I'm not going to comment on it here.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Clayton, thank you for your presence here today, your interest in serving the country. I appreciate the conversation we had in the office. I appreciate the relationship and conversations we had over the time in your past public service. In my office, I stressed to you a belief in the importance of our intelligence relationships around the globe, not just Five Eyes, but with many others. Over the past years, there have been reports in the press of allies withholding intelligence or us suspending intelligence sharing. How do you view the relationship with our allies? Do you see partner services as a force multiplier or simply transactional in nature?
Senator Rounds, I think I'll be able to give you a much better answer should I be confirmed and have greater access to those relationships. I know the Five Eyes relationship historically has been extremely valuable to the United States. In terms of bilateral sharing, like anything, I think that's something that you have to assess constantly whether it's working. But there's no reason not to explore whether you can have something that works. I assume you would say that it's desirable to have a relationship with many, many countries around the globe and determine whether there's a relationship that can work in which we're sharing intelligence information.
I think that's really well said. In your answer to a written question asking if you commit to making sure that Ukraine has the intelligence it needs to apply pressure on Russia, you said, quote, 'to the extent directed by the president, arm Ukraine and other partners with intelligence that illuminates Russian plans and intentions.' I appreciate that you work for the president, but I want to emphasize my belief that any such sharing is critical, and any suspension of intelligence sharing with Ukraine would require very serious justification. And so my question is, if confirmed, do you commit to sharing with this committee the rationale of any such suspension? And would you do so before the suspension becomes public? Give us a chance to have input in that consequential decision.
Yeah. I expect to have, I would say, frequent and substantive dialogue, including around priorities. The priorities are set to reflect the priorities of the administration and the priorities of the president, but I expect to continue to discuss any change in those priorities. And again, I'm not privy to these things, but I don't have any expectation that that priority is changing.
I chair an appropriations subcommittee that funds the FBI, and I have a strong interest in supporting its counterintelligence role. It's the lead counterintelligence agency in the US. But you note in your answers that the National Counterintelligence and Security Center within ODNI is the, quote, 'head of the US government counterintelligence activities.' How would you characterize the relative roles of the FBI and the security center in counterintelligence, and what are the practical effects of how that would work?
Senator, my direct experience with counterintelligence, and obviously I can't go into the specifics, but it's fairly extensive at the moment, is directly with the FBI. Some engagement with the center, but it's mostly directly with the FBI and Homeland Security.
And that past experience, that relationship, lends you to what kind of conclusions in that regard?
It's extremely important. The threat is real. The threat to the safety and security of the American people is real, and we need to be vigilant every day. And in fact, I think my colleagues would be happy if, in your role, I made a pitch for more resources.
If they would. Let me ask about your private sector experience. In preparation for the role that you may soon assume, have you identified any opportunities where the intelligence community can leverage private sector capabilities to enhance the IC's mission?
Yes, without a doubt. The obvious one is data and data analysis. Making connections where they might not otherwise be apparent, or where the ability to make those connections in the past took weeks and months, and with some of the tools that we have today, can take hours to make the same connections. The same connections that are important to combating what I would say is espionage.
Mr. Clayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Rounds. Senator Heinrich.
Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Clayton, it is alleged, and I would add quite credibly, that Jeffrey Epstein committed some very serious crimes at his ranch property in my home state of New Mexico. Yet there has never been a federal search of that property. And in fact, in 2019, the Department of Justice directed New Mexico to pause its own investigation and has most recently refused to provide the unredacted evidence needed for our attorney general to effectively carry out his investigation, despite federal and state laws requiring disclosure. I understand that as US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, you led the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Can you commit to providing any relevant information to the New Mexico attorney general and the unredacted documents that he has requested?
Yeah, I spoke to my team about this last night. That request is for unredacted documents. Those documents are subject to several protections for those redactions, including a protective order of the court. My folks, I think, as we speak, are seeking dialogue with the attorney general to see if we can reach an accommodation that is consistent with those protective orders.
I would seriously encourage that cooperation and that spirit of working in cooperation between federal and state law enforcement. I think it is quite clear that it is likely that there are survivors, witnesses, and co-conspirators whose names have been redacted that are necessary for him to effectively complete that investigation. And Mr. Chairman, I would also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the letter from the New Mexico Attorney General to the Department of Justice.
Without objection, I guess.
Mr. Clayton, in your role as US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, you were tasked to personally certify that the unsealed grand jury material related to Jeffrey Epstein did not disclose victims' personal information. The judge in that case stated that he added this protective order to ensure that an identifiable official within DOJ takes ownership of the sensitive and vitally important process of reviewing discovery. Due to what the Department of Justice later called technical or human error, the January 26 release of material included email addresses and even nude photos of potential Epstein victims. Lawyers for those victims said that this flawed process retraumatized the survivors and, quote, 'turned their lives upside down.' You were in charge of this process during which highly sensitive personal data was made public. Did you personally certify the material as the judge ordered?
The judge ordered certification of a subset of the materials, the materials that were in the Southern District.
So who takes responsibility for what I think was an unconscionable release, an unnecessary release of personal information for these victims?
I think the Department of Justice has addressed that from the overall perspective.
You know, Harry Truman used to have a sign on his desk that said, 'The buck stops here.' Who has a sign on their desk in this case?
For the Southern District documents, it was me.
Okay. In a media interview a couple of months ago, you were asked your position on the president's $1.8 billion fund for victims of weaponization, and you replied, quote, 'When we are investigating people and bringing charges against them, criminal charges against people, from a financial point of view, you can be absolutely devastating. If people have been pursued inappropriately, I'm supportive of there being relief for that financial cost.' That's the end quote. Do you believe that people convicted of violent crimes related to the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol and on US Capitol police were pursued inappropriately in any way?
Let me say this. Any physical violence against law enforcement is completely objectionable.
Would it be appropriate for that fund to be used in cases where people were duly convicted of violent crimes in that case?
Let me go back to my comment very quickly. I was not speaking of the fund. I was speaking generally. I think this is a CNBC clip, and I stand by what I said, which is if people have been inappropriately and intentionally subject to prosecution, they should have recourse.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to let the witness know we've got the Fed chair upstairs, but I will be right back. I want to make sure my colleagues know I'll be back directly. Senator Budd, thank you.
Chairman Clayton, it's good to see you again. I enjoyed our visit a few weeks ago in the office, and also when I was coming on to the House Financial Services and you were coming into the SEC. I enjoyed our time that decade ago. So, as we talked about a couple weeks ago, did the president ever ask you to disband or dismantle the ODNI or the intelligence community?
No. Senator, the president has given me no instructions other than to do a good job.
Great. Thanks. A little while ago, you and Chairman Cotton were talking about economic security being national security, those two being synonymous. So we've got an intelligence community largely established in 1947, after around the Cold War period. So what changes are necessary in the intelligence community to maintain economic security as well as national security?
I don't want to say that the intelligence community is currently free from economic analysis and the provision of intelligence, but I do believe that the economic effects of various events should be more a part of intelligence assessments, because economic effects, markets move immediately. Markets react, and then people react to markets. I mean, most interestingly today for all of us is the price of oil. Understanding the dynamics around the current and the long-term price of energy and the price of oil, I think, is an essential part of any intelligence assessment.
Thank you. You know, the men and women in the intelligence community, they do extraordinary work, and most of the time they don't get any recognition. But sometimes there's a few bad eggs. We have Edward Snowden, Dave Rush, the gold bar guy. So as DNI, you'll also be the executive agent for security, as I understand it. So what's your vision for this role to ensure the security clearance process, and also to make sure we find and mitigate, head off these insider threats?
I think there are two processes that fall. One is classification and overseeing classification. The other is overseeing security. It may not be super interesting, but we need to focus on both of those. I think the consensus that I've heard from people who know more than I do is that both of those are in need of a refresh to be more effective.
Thank you. I look forward to staying in touch on that and appreciate your work.
Thank you. I think Senator Budd raised an important point. You know, we all love our troops. Troops go through the airport. They're in uniform. People buy them a beer. They buy them a lunch. Some of us may have benefited from those freebies in uniform back in the day. Our intelligence officers don't get that gratitude. So let me just take the moment to join Senator Budd and express our thankfulness for everything they do, since they're not out there getting a beer and a sandwich bought for them when their airports are out in town. But we would be exposed to many more threats if it wasn't for them. Senator King.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I agree with your comments. Whenever I meet members of the intelligence community, I say, 'You don't get the flyovers at the football games, but we appreciate what you do.' Mr. Clayton, there's been some discussion earlier about the importance of analytical integrity, telling truth to power. The Intelligence Community Directive 203, which goes back more than a decade, says this: any information from the intelligence community should be independent of political consideration. Analytic assessments must not be distorted by nor shaped by advocacy of a particular audience, agenda, or policy viewpoint. Analytic judgments must not be influenced by the force of preference for a particular policy. You concur with that, I presume?
So I want to ask a follow-up question to the vice chairman. Who won the 2020 election?
I've answered that question. I'm not going to get into that.
You have not answered that question. Could you answer the question? Who won the 2020 election? Pretty simple question.
I'm going to give you the same answer. The answer to the chairman was, he asked me if I was an election denier. I am not an election denier. Joe Biden was certified, as he went through his process. We went through our electoral process, and I can tell you that I was in my seat at the SEC and...
I'm just asking a really simple question. Who won the 2020 election?
As I said to you, we went through our processes, and Joe Biden became the president of the United States.
And that's not an answer to the question of who. I'm asking one more time, who won the...
I don't... I'm not... I'm here to talk about my qualifications.
One of your qualifications is you told us you're going to tell the truth to power, and you won't answer a very simple question.
I think I've answered it many times.
You have not answered it.
You have not answered it. Saying Joe Biden was certified is not an answer. Okay. Why did you take it upon yourself to opine on the California election process to CNBC? You said during the interview on CNBC, you said the US is doing an absolutely terrible job on election integrity and the American people are right to question it. What's the basis of that statement? What's the evidence for that statement?
Let me give you the context of the way I look at this, because we should have this kind of candid dialogue. Elections are a process for gathering, aggregating, and providing data.
And who does the Constitution entrust the responsibility for elections?
To the states, in the case we're talking about.
To the states, in the case we're talking about. But my experience at the SEC, my experience at the DOJ, my experience in the private sector is that the government processes for gathering, aggregating, and providing data need to be improved greatly.
Are you talking about elections, or...
Talking about inflation data?
No, I'm talking about all government processes, including the one...
I want some evidence, and there isn't time here in a minute and 49 seconds, but you have a lot of time between now and when we move on your nomination. I would like a written analysis from you that gives evidence of voter fraud in this country. Mr. Clayton's clear assertion is that there's voter fraud.
I did not make that assertion. I said the...
You're doing an absolutely terrible job on election integrity. What did that mean?
That meant that the audit trail that we have available for our elections in a number of places is not the kind of audit trail that you would expect in something that is this important. That's what it meant.
So is there a problem of voter fraud in this country?
I don't think we can say definitively whether there is or is not until we have better processes.
We've had hundreds of analyses. We've had the Heritage Foundation study that found 1,650 cases out of two billion votes counted.
I would love for the American people to have incredible confidence in the integrity of our elections.
I would too, and I would appreciate that this administration would cease undermining that confidence.
I would like to work with this committee from my perspective.
