tv Intelligence Officials Testify on Diversity CSPAN October 27, 2021 3:05pm-5:42pm EDT
to enforce it via civil suit without federal court review. at 11:00, united states vs. texas looks at whether the justice department has a right to sue in federal court to block the law. watch the oral argument live coverage on c-span2. live or on demand at c-span.org. listen on c-span radio or on the new c-span now mobile app. >> next, a look at increasing diversity in the intelligence community. the director of national intelligence and the heads of the national security agency, the defense intelligence agency, and the central intelligence agency testified on capitol hill. congressman adam schiff of california chaired the hearing.
mr. schiff: thank you for joining us today. without objection, the chair may declare a recess at any time. i want to remind members that today's hearing will be conducted entirely on an unclassified basis. all participants are reminded to remain from discussing classified or other information protected from public disclosure. i now recognize myself for an opening statement. i'm pleased to welcome all of you to today's important hearing about diversity, equity, incolleagues, and accessibility in the -- inclusion, and accessibility in the intelligence community. i asked that each of you commit to appear before this committee in open session to detail your efforts to advance this important mission, and i'm very pleased to see that commitment has been fulfilled. the presence of five senior
leaders at the intelligence community at this hearing is an encouraging testament to your collective commitment to elevate initiatives and ultimately drive real change. as a long time member of this committee, i've seen the emphasis on diversity. it's not enough to pay lip service to the goal. we must put forth a concrete strategy to truly build and inclusive i.c. and hold ourselves accountability to the goals we set. i'm pleased the administration prioritized these issues. 15 days after taking office, president biden issued a national security memorandum that acknowledged past shortcomings and identified diversity, equity, and inclusion and accessibility as a national security imperative. i agree entirely. put simply, our diversity is our greatest national strength and it is a strength we need to leverage in support of the mission of the intelligence community. for too long, the i.c. workforce has not reflected the diverse talents and backgrounds found across the country.
without top caliber officers drawn from all cultures, all communities, and all backgrounds, we risk undermining the capacity of the i.c. to keep pace with the evolving national security challenges the united states will face in coming years. director haynes at the worldwide press hearing in april, you testified to increasing complexities and challenges posed by intersecting and cascading national threats. and the correlating necessity to develop and integrate new and diverse expertise into the intelligence community. whether it's understanding the nuances and language in culture from the signals intercept, enhancing finished intelligence analysis with unique and nontraditional perspectives or preparing an officer for operational deployment in a foreign country, it is vital we bolster the i.c.'s ranks with personnel who can act with agility and creativity in the face of a rapidly shifting strategic threat horizon. and yet it is clear we have plenty of work left to do. i remain concerned about inadequate progress and recruiting and retaining
individuals of diverse backgrounds and the course -- in the core i.c. collection and analysis missions. for instance, i can't help but notice that the large majority of i.c. briefers, though uniformly excellent to appear before the committee, are often white and male. we need to recruit officers which diverse backgrounds into the i.c. and we need to show them there's a path forward to grow to top leadership positions. when we're able to successfully do that, we'll inspire future recruits and hires to do the same. i look forward to hearing your updates on whether we are in -- where we are on our diversity, equity, and inclusion accessibility efforts and how this committee can assist you in accelerating this progress. if our resources or authorities are lacking, or if there are other avenues for promoting these initiatives, i know you'll find allies here who are ready and eager to help you. i look forward to all your testimonies and will now yield to the ranking member for any opening statement he would wish to make. >> i thank the gentleman.
on its website, the office of director of national intelligence asserts that the intelligence community focuses on, i quote, the missions of cyber intelligence, counterproliferation, counterintelligence, and on the threats posed by state and nonstate actors challenging u.s. national security and interests worldwide, unquote. mr. nunes: that's a concise accurate description of the intelligence community's mission. the i.c. is a all-star game group of agencies comprising tens of thousands of people that collectively wield enormous power within our government. they possess extremely sophisticated spying capabilities and by necessity, they operate without transparency that's required of most government agencies. naturally, this concentration of power, spying capabilities and lack of transparency creates many opportunities for abuse. and abuses do happen which is why this committee exists. we were created as an additional level of oversight in response
to misdeeds detailed by the church and pike committees in the 1970's. so why do we tolerate such an agreement in a democratic republic? i believe that the american people understand the risks but they believe the risks are outweighed by the benefits the intelligence community provides. mainly, information about our foreign enemies' intentions and capabilities that will help protect the american people and defend the security of the homeland. in short, the intelligence community's mission is to secure information to help deter our enemies. when that cannot be done to help us win wars and other direct conflicts with these enemies. the i.c., however, seems to be increasingly focused on issues that distract from that mission. the indications ranging from trivial recruitment, videos, to major intelligence estimates show that an infatuation with left-wing doing ma and politicized -- dogma and politicized actions that have
nothing to do with winning wars. we see this not only in the intelligence community but throughout the entire national security apparatus, in the military, the state department, and other bodies. these include the proliferation of seminars given to military service members focusing on the dangers of white supremacy and systemic racism. fox news host tucker carlson caught up in alleged n.s.a. surveillance. the release of a national estimate on climate change. state department communications touting international pronoun day. the n.s.a.'s in proper suspension of general counsel and officer michael ellis for political reasons. the f.b.i.'s provision of false information to a fisa court to spy on political enemies. and the list goes on and on. the international threat matrix does not take time out as our national security agencies
become intlauld by critical race theory and pronoun etiquette. to the contrary, we're facing an array of pressing challenges, including but not limited to china's increasing aggressiveness towards taiwan, alongside its systemic campaign of intellectual property theft, espionage, currency manipulation, corporate coercion, and cyber crimes against the united states and our allies. china's testing of a hypersonic missile, which according to press reports, took the tension community by surprise. -- took the intelligence community by surprise. the withdrawal from afghanistan, including the empowerment of the taliban and longtime ties to al qaeda. the decline in u.s. deterrence capabilities, the loss of tjs streams and -- intelligence streams and u.s. citizens and allies who were left behind. the spread of ransomware attacks on u.s. targets and unknown number of security threats entering america through our southern border and from
refugees from afghanistan, continuing russian aggression towards its neighbors. advances in nuclear weapons programs of north korea, iran, and other malign regimes. and i could go on with that list but those retoe -- are at the top of the list. we can't counter hyper sonic missile launch with pronoun usage and white rage won't help those in afghanistan. woke obsession are part of faculty lounge marxists, not our national security agencies. this apparatus is utd utterly been destructive. this effect is predictable and inevitable as more americans conclude that intelligence agencies are just another weapon in domestic political battles. the less willing they are to concede these agencies, the huge power that they will.
the intelligence community, the military, and other national security bodies have traditionally been colorblind meritocracies were the most -- where the most capable people move up the ranks. the effectiveness of these organizations will unavoidably suffer when merit is devalued in favor of any other consideration. i urge all the directors here today to stay out of politics and concentrate exclusively on deterring our enemies and winning wars. as we learned in afghanistan, america is not unbeatable. we have real enemies and they mean to do us harm. they have no interest in global warming or race, gender intersectionality. they watch every day to find weaknesses that would enable attacks on our citizens and our homeland. our defense against them rests to a large extent on all of you here today. i hope your priorities will match the urgency of this fraught moment in our nation's history. with that i look forward to your testimony. i yield back the balance of my time.
mr. schiff: thank you. with that let me now recognize our distinguished panel for their opening statements. beginning with director haynes followed by undersecretary moultry, director burns, general nakasoni. we ask you to keep your remarks to around 20 minutes or so if possible. a warm welcome to all. director haynes, you are now recognized. director haynes: thank you, chairman schiff, ranking member nunes, members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to join you today. it's truly an honor to be here with my colleagues to discuss the work we have had ahead of us to expand equity, inclusion, accessibility d.deia within the i.c. while we have -- many of whom worked hard to achieve the progress over the last many years. we know we have a great deal of work ahead of us. these leaders know that it is not only essential to our
mission and our values but to who we are as a nation. promoting diversity, ensuring that we reflect the country we serve is a responsibility we carry as public servants. moreover, it's fundamental to our national security. ensuring we have an i.c. workforce made up of people who see differently, overcome challenges differently is a prerequisite to our success. their creativity makes us more smarter, innovative, successful, and that makes our nation safer and more secure against the array of adversaries and the foreign threats we face. currently, however, the intelligence community is not where it needs to be. minorities, women, persons with disabilities are far better represented at the lower g.s. level ranks than at the senior executive levels. suggesting better success at recruiting than retaining and promoting and yet even so when you look at the recruiting, we
consistent is i -- consistent is i see a gap -- consistently see a gap. let me provide a few points that may be helpful. in 2020, the percentage of minorities in the intelligence community stood at 27%. an increase from 26.5% in fiscal year 2019. continuing a positive trend since 2016. if you examine the senior levels of service, the data shows the number of minorities in leadership yet progressively lower. across the i.c., the percentage of minorities at the senior executive level stand at 15.4%. and at odni, we lag behind the rest of the i.c. minorities comprise 20.5% of our workforce. 6.5% below the i.c. average. although the percentage of minorities at the senior executive level in the odni is
1.3% higher than the i.c. average at 16.7%. in fiscal year 2020, the percentage of women in the intelligence community stood constant at 39.3%. it's about the same as the year before after showing a small gain in fiscal year 2018. within odni, the percentage of women has grown incrementally within the past years, increasing by .4% in 2020 over the previous year. while still higher than the i.c. average, that percentage still lags behind women in the civilian labor force at 47%. so while we've seen some positive trends, we need to improve. and here is some of what we're doing to change the situation, but i look forward to get your thoughts and advice on this issue and i very much appreciate the committee spending time on this question. earlier this year, we split the i.c. eeod into two offices, the office of equal employment and
diversity, equity, and inclusion. so we can be full. we also created a new enterprisewide role, the i.c. accessibility officer, and stood up the odni group to address eeia within odni. to of our highest organizational priorities are recruitment and that includes underrepresented communities and retention of people who are underrepresented in our workforce. both dr. dixon, my principal deputy, and i have worked to recruit at colleges and high schools where we can reach those communities and expand our application pool. just recently, i visited our partner school, florida international university, which is primarily comprised of hispanic students and dr. dixon visited harris university, an hbcu in st. louis. of course, we know our individual efforts will not be enough. we need institutional growth to achieve our goals and so we've taken the following measures --
across the i.c. we've empowered advisory offices and the i.c. chief human capital council to focus on these issues. i.c. elements are collaborating in joint outreach in underrepresented communities to reach more candidates. the i.c. centers for academic excellence program is being strengthened to increase our reach with more formal marketing, university engagement, recruiting strategies, and coordination with i.c. elements. we've also formed new partnerships across academia, industry, and government with organizations like the american indian science and engineering society, a national nonprofit focused on increasing stem involvement for inthe distinguished gentleman from news peoples of north -- indigenous peoples of north america. and a direct connection at top-rated h.b.c.u. -- hbcu's. and we are not only focusing on
colleges and universities. we are inspiring underrepresented communities at the k-12 levels as well. there's a lot more we can do, but we need your help with changing policies that hinder program execution. for instance, in a community that prioritizes resources by mission, we found that policies that govern how we can allocate our recruiting dollars can actually hinder recruiting. for example, in one of our i.c. mission partners lacks the resources to send a recruiter to an event with an outreach partner. odni is prohinted -- prohibited from including resources. we appreciate the committee's inclusion to provide now authorities to odni in the f.y. 2022 intelligence authorization act. our other organizational priorities i mentioned is to retain our employees after hiring them. we've learned through poll surveys, exit interviews why people stay and leave. we found that the most common reason people leave the
organization is a lack of promotion opportunities. other causes of low retention include lack of fairness and equity in the workforce, insufficient mentoring and guidance, a lack of identification with the greater organization. we listened to the voices of those surveyed and we are addressing these issues with employee-led organizations, taking measures to promote fairness and equity and deliver anti-harassment training. the intelligence community sponsors six affinity networks that are employee-led that foster workplace inclusion and collaboration with i.c. leaders on improving policies to help connect employees to the community. and they include the latino intelligence network, the women's intelligence network, asian american and pacific islander affinity network, african-american affinity network, i.c. lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender affinity network. and deaf and hard of hearing i.c. affinity net, would. networks likes -- network.
networks like these can lead to professional opportunities and work-life balancing programs. we are also working to remove the structural and cultural barriers that the i.c. has built up over generations. this community for a long time was known as one that did not value deia. it was only a single generation ago that many of our i.c. agencies had an open stated policies of not hiring anybody who was lgbtq-plus, plus forcing many of our colleagues to hide who they were if they wanted to serve their country. we have corrected our outdated policies since then and made tremendous strides under both republican and democratic administrations. the policy that barred service from members of the lgbtq-plus, glass ceilings were smashed. this is work you have done to promote diversity in the government. our journey is far from over. in the i.c., we know how to work
together to support the nation's objectives. congress created odni to do this and we're bringing that approach to our efforts to increase diverse, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. this is quintessentially american. to see we have the power to make ourselves better, to work toward a brighter vision of what we might be, what could be, and what will be. we are resolute in this purpose, and i know we will be successful. thank you. mr. schiff: -- >> chairman schiff, ranking member nunes, members of the committee, i'm happy to talk about diversity across the intelligence enterprise. i'm pleased to testify in front of you today. on behalf of secretary austin, i
want to convey the importance of workforce diversity to the department of defense. diversity is a mission imperative. because it is through our people that we achieve our greatest accomplishments, overcome our greatest challenges and ensure we maintain a competitive advantage. secretary moultrie: our personnel must serve anywhere in the world, speak the language, blend in to the environment. we must be able to understand our partners and allies' concerns and challenges so we can seamlessly cooperate with them and we must be capable as anticipating our adversaries' action to have an advantage to our decisionmakers. we need all hands and all perspectives on deck to protect our national security interests. we also need fact-based metrics to inform our decisions. workforce diversity goes beyond a subjective ratio of men to women or some idealized percentage of ethnic minorities. the diversity in our workforce
should reflect the diversity people we serve and represent. analysis of the last census predicts by 2030, one in five americans will be beyond retirement age and our population in growth will be directly tied to international migration. people who identify as two or more races will be the fastest global racial or ethnic group. census trends suggests that the minority populations will be the majority in our nation within the next 80 years. they will be the majority of growth in our nation's working, voting, and consumer population. a diverse workforce provides us with an asymmetric advantage that other nations simply do not have. we must find the means to appeal to this population, hire them into our most challenging fields and such conditions where they enthusiastically want to remain within our government. the data scientists, artificial intelligence machine learning analysts, linguists, security
professionals and other specialists and support personnel we must hire must be creative, imaginative and unconventional to our approach to major challenges. the diversity and commitment represented at this table gives us reason to hope. however, to enact meaningful and lasting change, there must be actions, accountability and we must be institutionalized. i'd like to highlight those that will foster greater diversity across the intelligence enterprise. a deputy workforce council with the vice chairman withstanding members of the secretaries, military service chiefs and undersecretaries of defense. the primary purpose of this council is to address the most daunting workforce challenges which include addressing sexual assault and harassment, extremism in our ranks, and focusing on talent management. this effort places a heavy emphasis on data that will allow
us to have fact-based metrics needed to thoroughly understand our human capital performance and to improve our decisions in this area. although the secretary -- office of secretary of defense team has been together for a brief period, we are working with the military services and our military academies to best identify those practices that can be incorporate into our recruiting and planning efforts. we are working on outreach initiatives to schools, universities, incluesivity groups. optimizing our ability to resonate with perspective hires. and gathering data, we believe, will understand issues that will impact workforce retention. we also continue to recruit highly talented separating service members and expand recruitment of persons with disabilities. and expanding with hbcu's and those with the educational scholarship program. i'm glad to see our connection that the stokes scholarship
program as i served as a fellow back in the 1990's. chairman stokes was the former chairman of this distinguished committee. we have a diverse workforce pilot program to expand our pools. these focus on individuals that think, communicate and behave differently and due to a diagnosis such as autism or adhd, because we recognize these individuals make valuable contributions to our community and our society. lastly, throughout the pandemic, we've expanded our use of social media for recruitment, enable work-related capabilities to ensure continued productivity. although there is much more to accomplish, we're committed to ensuring there is a environment to make sure everyone is supported and valued. i want to ensure this commitment has been embraced, not only those been the defense enterprise, but leadership across the department of
defense, both civilian and military. i wish to thank the committee for holding this hearing and for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important topic. your leadership on diversity benefits our country and our community, helping us to keep the united states safe and secure. i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> chairman schiff, ranking member nunes, members of the committee. as i emphasized in my confirmation hearing, strngening diversity and inclusion at the c.i.a. is my highest priority as director. it's not only the smart thing to do for an agency with a global commission, it's the right thing to do for an agency that represents and defends our diverse society. simply put, we can't be effective and we're not being true to our nation's ideals if everyone looks like me, talks like me, and thinks like me. director burns: today at c.i.a., 45% of our workforce are female and 26% are minority. last year's new hires were among
our most diverse in recent years with 46% female and 27% minority. our challenge in the years ahead is not only to strengthen those numbers in our recruitment but also to reinforce retention and ensure a clear professional pathway to the senior ranks for deserving officers, whatever their background. we're making progress. this past spring, senior intelligence service promotion was the first i approved as director was 35% female and 25% minority. the senior leadership team i made in seven months as director are female and nearly a third minority. but we still have a long way to go. we have four broad goals to strengthen diversity, equity, incolleagues, and accessibility -- inclusion, and accessibility at the agency. first, we'll create greater diversity in our hiring pipeline and increase the onboarding rate for minority applicants. we are intensifying our outreach
to 130 schools across all 50 states. as part of this effort, we're going to expand our engagement with colleges and universities identified as minority serving institutions. so far this year, we've engaged with 34 m.s.i.'s. we've also selected senior officers to serve as champions for 10 of those schools. and under our new directorate of analysis fellowship program, we plan to provide annual tuition assistance of up to $37,000 to select students from minority serving institutions who apply to the d.a. the agency must urgently reform our onboarding process and remove barriers to recruiting a diverse workforce. for example, our talent center aims over the next two years to reduce the current median time application to clearance from over 600 days to no more than 180 days. longer waiting times have
historically disadvantaged minority applicants, many of whom don't have the means to remain in lengthy pipelines. regarding accessibility -- this year's c.i.a. was ranked number two in the list of government employers with the best record for accessibility in the workplace. by careers in the disabled magazine. we've also taken steps to help ensure all qualified individuals can apply to c.i.a. by addressing needs for reasonable accommodations. for example, we created a position of ability talent broker to help people with disabilities navigate our hiring process. now, recruiting is essential but it's only a starting point. there has to be a clear path upward which is critical for retention. this is why our second overall objective is to increase diversity in senior roles. we've assembled a team to strengthen our personnel evaluation systems over the next year. we're also launching a new human resources dash board that draws on workforce and hiring data to
help us pinpoint specific diversity and inclusion challenges throughout the pipeline from junior g.s. levels through more senior levels. this will allow us to make better data-driven decisions on where to target our efforts and resources and it will help keep us accountable for ensuring progress. making the dash board available not just to senior leaders but to our entire workforce. our third objective is to make clear our expectations that all officers at every level of seniority incorporate diversity and inclusion practices into their job performance. as a step toward this, we've added expectations on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility to the performance evaluations of all of our officers. we've also created similar criteria for determining executive level bonuses. furthermore, the agency has incorporated diversity and inclusion into training for first-line supervisors,
mid-level managers, and newly promoted senior officers. finally, our fourth objective is to create a more inclusive culture at c.i.a. this starts at the top. i have made clear that we will hold those accountable for promoting inclusive environments. i'll continue to work with my remarkable colleagues across c.i.a. to emphasize the importance to our mission of strengthening a culture built on tolerance and respect. my first day on the job last march, i met with asian american officers after the terrible murders in atlanta to emphasize our shared concerns. i stressed repeatedly our strategic focus on the challenge posed by the people's republic of china is about the chinese leadership, not the chinese people, and certainly not americans of chinese dissent or asian americans. i met regularly with agency resource groups to underscore my commitment to an inclusive workplace and continue to participate actively in a variety of events.
most recently celebrated hispanic hair stage month at c.i.a. -- heritage month at c.i.a. with our key note speaker, congressman castro. the c.i.a. will embody the best of america and can best defend our interest and values in a very complicated world. thank you very much. >> chairman schiff, ranking member nunes, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the very important topic of diversity and inclusion within the intelligence community and at the national security agency, specifically. as the director of the national security agency, i recognize the critical importance of ensuring that the highly talented workforce we rely on to help secure our nation every day reflects the diversity of our country now and into our future. equally important is providing a fair, reregarding and inclusive work fighter for our onboard talent. without that, diversity will not flourish. director makasone: one of the programs is the queer and
visible engagement -- clear and visible engagement across this work. another is our 11 employer resource groups with more than 42 chapters and over 6,500 members across our enterprise. together, they are helping drive my two strategic initiatives, the big six, diversity, inclusion, a quality inclusion focus areas and equity through action. these two efforts, which build on the work started in 2014, combine to focus on accountability, hiring, onboarding and mentoring, advocacy, career development, and employ engagement that is able to reach their full potential at n.s.a. our programs are working. we have seen slow but steady increases in representation of minorities, women and people with disabilities in the workforce to include seniors. we are on track for reaching our minority hiring goals. n.s.a. increased our diversity hiring goals to 43% and 35% for
women and minorities respectively by the end of fiscal year 2022. together, civilian populations overall is 26.1% racial ethnic minority, 41.3% women, 12.4% persons with disabilities and 2.7% persons with targeted disabilities. our ongoing review of personal processes and outcomes persistently uncovers different results for some segments of the population and we're committed to leaning into our areas of improvement. this past july, the careers and the disabled magazine named n.s.a. public sector employee of the year for our commitment to recruiting, hiring, and promoting people with disabilities. earlier this month, the secretary of defense named n.s.a. the best intelligence component for its achievements in the employment of individuals with disabilities to include an n.s.a. employee was awarded for their outstanding contributions to the department of defense's mission and its core values. those successes are markers for
our agency as we move forward in the right direction. we still have room to grow. so i have established athlete outcomes to -- three outcomes to drive us forward and i'm confident they will help us succeed. first, increased representation of underrepresented populations at all grade senior ranks. secondly, ensuring our personal practices and programs yield fair outcomes for all groups. and finally, ownership of diversity, equality and inclusion outcomes for all leaders and employees to create a culture in which each employee feels included, respected, and valued and able to contribute fully to our mission. chairman and ranking member, i will end my comments here to allow sufficient time for questions. thank you. >> chairman schiff, ranking member nunes, distinguished members of the committee, it is a privilege to testify today on the status of diversity in the intelligence community and specifically on the status of diversity within the defense intelligence agency. this is an issue of great
importance to me as the director of d.i.a. d.i.a. feels the unique rule at the -- role at the intersection of the intelligence community and defense community. it has tactical intelligence to war fighters, acquisition community. the foundational intelligence at d.i.a., our colleagues across the agency, our allies and foreign partners help translate national policy into executable military action and to inform the joint force. lieutenant general berrier: this is critical to our workforce and key mission success. it's part of my strategy to create an ajiel -- agile workforce. we need to bring with them the diversity of thought, experience, and background. a more diverse, inclusive workforce starts with
recruitment. d.i.a. is committed to hiring exceptional talent for careers around the world that support our mission. we have developed a more intentional approach to recruitment and built relationships with 45 historically black colleges and universities, 34 bill's colleges and 15 hispanic serving institutions, minority professional organizations. within the civilian ranks, d.i.a. diversity has steadily increased over time. representation of women in the d.i.a. workforce has increased by 11% from f.y. 2017 to 2021. people of color in the d.i.a. workforce has increased 14% and representation of persons with disabilities in the d.i.a. workforce has increased by 2%. d.i.a. has been working to become a more diverse, accessible and inclusive agency through a variety of initiatives and changes to our human resources processes. we're making process but we know recruitment is not alone to sustain a diverse workforce and we have more to do. despite strong hiring numbers,
women and people of color are concentrated in nonleadership and mission enabling roles with fewer at the senior ranks and core analytic missions. we are prioritizing support to training, career broadening opportunities for our workforce as well as taking steps to reduce barriers in the promotion process. to help us understand our diversity profile and what is holding us back and what we can do about it, d.i.a. stood up a data working group in our equal opportunity office in 2019. we have inventoried and audited various sources, studied friends over the last five years and conducted analysis and held focus groups to interpret the findings. it's my intent that d.i.a.'s data driven approach to diversity and inclusion will be incorporated into our long term strategic diversity implementation plan. while we don't have all the answers we would like, we are committed to focusing on the obstacles to progress and to develop long lasting solutions that will help drive change. our initiatives have shown dividends and we will continue
to prioritize them as we work more toward an inclusive d.i.a. the success of our war fighters in the field rests on interior intelligence information and capabilities which supports our people. reducing bias, eliminating glass ceilings and walls and attracting and retaining the most qualified intelligence officers are our priorities. i'm privileged to lead d.i.a. in its out -- and its outstanding workforce. thank you for your continued confidence and support. mr. schiff: thank you very much for your testimony. we'll now begin the question period. i'll recognize myself. director haines, not only do there seem to be barriers, promotion to senior and executive leadership positions for individuals from diverse backgrounds, there also appears to be a growing glass wall where diversity resides within administrative and mission fields sump as communication and finance.
are you seeing this trend within your agency? what steps are being taken to increase representation in core mission areas such as analysis and collection, particularly in management and senior ranks? and if, for example, we look to the percentages that you gave in terms of women and minorities, overall in the agency, if you looked at that in senior management positions outside of administrative mission support fields, what would those numbers look like? director haines: thank you, chairman. so, yes, there is, obviously, a split that we've seen in administrative and support roles where there's a concentration of essentially both women and minorities in those areas. it is -- i don't -- i couldn't give you for odni but we should do that. what the split would be, in other words, what would the difference be within the senior ranks. others may have information about their particular agencies.
and departments. the -- one of the challenges here i think as you identified is the fact that we need to actually promote throughout the community in all different fields the diversity that we expect to see. and something that we have been looking at is how we actually do the hiring and whether or not we're actually promoting all fields in that context. so when i go to florida international university, for example, which happens to be an i.c. center of academic excellence, one of the things that they do is they take a competed grant and they develop curricula that actually promotes i.c. skills, tries to build out a whole series of workshops and other things that are intent to really develop, not just kind of student interest in these areas but actually the skills that would make them, you know, great
employees within the intelligence community and promoting that in these spaces i think helps allow students to see these are things that i can do as i'm coming into the intelligence community that i may now have thought of before and may not have been encouraged to do. that's a way for us to ensure we're actually bringing them into mission in every possible way. but others may have comments on this issue. mr. schiff: director burns, i know this is an i.c.-wide problem, but that is the length of time it takes to get someone cleared to join the i.c. have you found whether that has a disproportionate impact on diversity that is the length of time, whether it's six months, a year, 18 months to join the i.c., has the impact of excluding many people of color? director burns: thanks for the question, mr. chairman. it's a problem across the agency. i mean, as i mentioned in my
opening remarks that an onboarding process that can take as long as 600 days puts us at a considerable disadvantage in recruiting. the best talent across american society as a general role. it's a disadvantage, oftentimes, for minority applicants as well. many don't have the means to wait through a lengthy onboarding process as well. so for both of those reasons, i feel a real sense of urgency about reforming that process and reducing it, as i said, over the next couple of years to a median of about -- no more than 180 days. that's essential both for the agency as a whole and for minority recruitment and retention. mr. schiff: and director burns, do you believe there is a lingering or legacy cultural barrier to the deina initiatives at the agency as compared to other elements of the i.c.? director burns: i think it's a
challenge that, you know, the agency has wrestled with for some years. as i said, i think we're very focused on the increase on recruiting and retention and demonstrating a professional pathway for deserving officers, whatever their background, all the way to the senior ranks. i think those are the key ingredients and a formula to overcome that. i think we also put a great deal of effort to emphasize of promoting a culture -- i think like my challenges across the i.c., you know, we're making a serious effort. and i intend to continue that. mr. schiff: do any of the -- and i don't know how much of this you can discuss here but i know the agencies in the process of implementing your direction arising out of the results of the agenciwide strategic reviews conducted earlier this year. do any of those impact the area
we're discussing today? are you able to share information on that? director burns: yes, sir. one of the specific objectives in strengthening our workforce is the onboarding process that i mentioned before. i think that's absolutely critical, diversity, inclusion, accessibility, we launched a series of efforts, some of which i mentioned in my opening statement, aimed at recruitment as well as strengthening retention. as i said before, demonstrating a pathway to the senior most ranks of the agency. to our senior leadership team, in the seven months i've been director, i'm proud of the fact that over half of those are female and nearly a third are minorities as well. and that is, i think, a significant step in the right direction. mr. schiff: before i hand it off to the ranking member, i would just request to the various agencies, i'd be interested to see what your numbers look like and percentages look like within
the administrative and human resource fields compared to within analysis and collection. and with that i'll hand it off to the ranking member. mr. nunes: i thank the gentleman. general nakasone, i want to first speak to you about political discrimination in the workforce. first, i'd like to ask you some questions about naval officer lieutenant commander michael ellis whom you placed on administrative leave on president biden's inauguration day who subsequently withdrew as n.s.a. general counsel. the d.o.d. nmentor general released a -- inspector general released a report on this last week. the i.g. report details you went to great lengths to oppose the hiring of ellis. the report reveals that former d.o.d. general counsel told you in an email that some of your concerns about ellis, quote, had no basis and fact, unquote, and other concerns, quote, seem to be injecting partisan politics,
unquote. will you make these emails public? general nakasone: certainly, ranking member. mr. nunes: thank you. we know democrats in congress were pressuring you to oppose ellis' hiring and they got the d.o.d. inspector general to open an investigation into it. did anyone from the biden administration, either incoming or that inauguration day, pressure you to stop ellis' hiring? general nakasone: no one did pressure you, ranking member. mr. nunes: did you speak to susan rice? general nakasone: no. and not to jake sullivan. mr. nunes: you asked the office of personnel management to review the matter but they said they don't that. and the previous general counsel did not undergo an o.p.m. review. so you demanded a different process for ellis. in the end, you didn't have the authority on ellis' hiring.
mr. nye has that authority, correct? general nakasone: that's correct, mr. ranking member. mr. nunes: mr. nye had asked acting secretary of defense miller to direct you to appoint ellis and after receiving that direction from miller, you finally appointed him as general counsel. then just five days later on president biden's inauguration day, you placed lieutenant commander ellis on administrative leave. the i.g. found one of your justifications for placing ellis on administrative leave was to wait for the results of the inspector general investigation of his selection process was improper. do you accept the i.g.'s finding? general nakasone: i certainly accept the i.g.'s findings. we need to talk what the i.g. findings stated. the fact that mr. ellis had two significant security allegations -- mr. nunes: glad you're getting there. we'll get to that.
we're coming to that, if you can let me get through my questions and i'll give you a chance, an opportunity to discuss that. the i.g. also found there was no improper political influence by the trump white house towards ellis' appointment. did you believe at the time that there was political influence? >> nak -- general nakasone: it was the process upon which i was being advised. that the individual had to have a merit-based review. this is what caused a bit of the confusion. but later on we found out and the d.o.d. cleared up there was not a need for a merit-based review. mr. nunes: you don't dispute the i.g.'s findings on this question? general nakasone: i do not, ranking member. mr. nunes: it came from anonymous sources who told "the washington post," among other things, that you opposed lieutenant commander ellis' hiring. these anonymous sources had remarkable insight into your
thought process. so what happened here was someone close to you planted a fake news story claiming the white house improperly pressured the n.s.a. to hire lieutenant commander ellis. then as detailed by the inspector general, democrats in congress cited the story to gin up an i.g. investigation and you did it to sabotage lieutenant commander ellis' hiring. a cute trick. you were being forced to hire ellis against your will and you were improperly trying to delay his hiring by citing an i.g. investigation. then, just two days after acting secretary defense directs you to hire ellis, in a miraculous coincidence of timing, your deputy, mr. barns, informs of you two allegations that ellis had mishandled classified information. the first alleged incident involved a state department official who made the allegation to mr. barns -- who made the
allegation to mr. barns about that supposed incident. who? general nakasone: i don't know, ranking member. i am not aware who made that allegation. mr. nunes: ok. then, there was a second one. who made the allegation on the second supposed incident? general nakasone: again, ranking member, i don't know who made the allegation. the allegation came from my deputy director indicating that there had been reports that there was mishandling of documents to include the copying of n.s.a. sensitive materials and the distribution of those materials. mr. nunes: so mr. barns would know who these people are? general nakasone: correct. mr. nunes: could you have mr. barns provide us the names of those people who made these serious allegations? general nakasone: we will certainly look into that, mr. ranking member.
mr. nunes: i'll take that as a yes or no? general nakasone: again, i'd like to be able to talk with my counsel that we could do given the investigation that is taking place. mr. nunes: so you're forced to hire ellis. your attempts to stop him failed. it suddenly brought to you allegations made against mr. ellis by two people both of whom work for you. yet, on january 19, ellis shows up for work and he receives a security clearance. the next day, shortly after president biden is sworn in, you place ellis on administrative leave. so on january 19, you're aware of these supposed security incidents and you approve lieutenant commander ellis' clearance and then the next day, just after the biden team is insfauld, you decide -- installed, you decide that ellis is no longer fit to serve. the i.g. report says you dropped the investigation of ellis after he withdrew as n.s.a. general counsel.
so you open an investigation based on allegations made by your subordinates. then you drop the probe so no one ever finds out there's any evidence to support them. to sum up, you found various pretext, including a fake news story planted by someone close to you to get rid of ellis. you ruined the career of a lieutenant commander, a naval officer for political reasons. you accuse him of mishandling classified information. so hopefully you can get those names to the committee. but i want to talk about mishandling of classified information. i want to change the topic. the last open hearing i asked you if you'd ever recalled an intelligence report by senior -- by senior government -- if you ever recalled an intelligence report by a senior government or military official. i want to give you an opportunity to clarify your answer from the last hearing. have you as director of n.s.a. recalled a report on a basis that was embarrassing to a
senior military leader or government official? general nakasone: i have not. mr. nunes: are there any repeat offenders which have had to provide signals intelligence -- are there any repeat offenders or offenses where signals intelligence embarrassing to a senior military leader, have you done this since the last hearing? general nakasone: ranking member, i am not sure i understand the context of your question. mr. nunes: well, let me try to clarify it for you. you're saying that you have never recalled any intelligence reports that could be embarrassing to senior leaders who are in the military or i.c. or any other government agency general nakasone: one of them is the distribution of these reports, if they're incorrect. secondly, if the trade craft is bad and if the trade craft is brought to my attention that this is not something that should be within our analytic
reports, that is certainly something that i have agreed to recall a report. mr. nunes: did any senior military officers ask you to recall a report? general nakasone: i did it as director of the national security agency as these matters come up and they are brought to my attention. this is about the only report that i've directed a recall on. . mr. nunes: final question here and i'll yield back my time. obviously you're familiar with the talker carlson situation that's been in the news, the n.s.a. inspector general is reportedly investigating allegations that the n.s.a. swept up tucker carlson's communications are you and your staff cooperating with that investigation? general nakasone: certainly, and we are also cooperating with this committee and shared all the relevant details. mr. nunes: with that, i yield back.
>> director, i want to make sure you had a chance to answer the question -- is there any further you want to add? general nakasone: no. >> mr. hymes. mr. himes: i want to bring us back to why we're here. is this some scratching of some faculty lounge itch as the ranking member suggests? is this some effusion of white liberal guilt? it is do not it is do not we are here our responsibility, our duty, is to field the most competent, capable and lethal national security team we can. generation ago, the c.i.a. was mocked for being pale, male, yale. now maybe you believe that n.i.c. comprised of white males
is the as a result of a -- is the result of a perfectly moart contractic -- merit ocontract -- meritocratic system, or that white males are better than others, and there's a word for that. i don't believe that. i believe if we have an insufficiently diverse i.c. we are failing to tap the talent of women, african-americans latino, and asian americans. if we fail to tap that talent we are falling down in our duty to field the most competent, capable team that we can. director haynes, i'm looking at some stats here that show a trend that i've seen in other institutions which is, easier to recruit a diverse talent pool than to promote them to most senior levels. i won't go into the numbers but going pr gs-9 to gs-15 you see a
steady dropoff of the pert centage of the -- percentage of minority staff. two questions. i know it's complicated but do your best in three minutes. do we have good data? i read in the report that exit interviews are optional that would suggest to me that maybe we don't have good data. secondly, inas much as we do have -- ins amuchs a go have good day tark why do we lose diversity as people climb the ranks? ms. haynes: on the question of whether we have good data,y ill -- i will tell you we need more data. some of the data we have is good data but we don't have exit interviews exhaustively applied across the community. we're working to do that to try
to help with ensuring we have the resources allocated to that and the systems in place and that is something that needs to be done. ms. haines: additionally, odni hadn't done data collecting, doing sur vairks exit interviews. we are now in the process of getting a barrier report done that was overdue. so there's a lot of room for improvement in this. in the context of the work ha has been done, what we have found out from those surveys and exit interview that was been done is that the primary reason people give is lack of promotion opportunity, as i mentioned. so that sake question for us and it certainly is -- comes back to, you know, one of the original point yourself making, i think. that's something we're looking at. i would say too that as we look at, on the recruitment side, we have attracted more minorities, for example, to apply, right,
but we're not actually seeing them get hired as i pointed out in the same percent annals that they're applying, right? so you see a roughly 10% gap there that's pretty significant and we're looking at this across a range of issues. so the question is, why is that happening? and part of the question we're trying to answer is through data, right, like, basically talking to those candidates about their process. what is happening during that process. trying to ensure that folks who are hiring managers, for example, are undergoing unconscious bias training, other things that might be helpful in that context. doing a variety of things to ensure that we're going to both pull the data so we can better understand it and do what we can to improve that situation. mr. hymes: i want -- mr. himes: i want to interrupt, are we talk mentorship, culture, prejudice, i know we don't have
much time but i'd love to come away from the conversation with a sense of your diagnosis. ms. haines: we're hearing lack of opportunity, insufficient mentoring and guidance, and lack of identification with the organization. my last point would be we don't have the data to see whether or not the gap between applicants and hiring is happening in promotion boards as people are going through the i.c. that's another key place where we need to dig in and see whether or not we're seeing the same percentage drop in a sense, that gap, as we're going through the system, in a sense. mr. himes: thank you. mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. schiff: mr. turner. mr. turner: thank you for being here. director haines, i want to thank you for your references to historically black colleges and universities. i happen to be co-chair of the
historically black colleges caucus and serve on the inclusion caucus we passed a number of bills in the national defense authorization act relating to coordination between the department of defense and historically black colleges and universities for internship, mentor, recruiting and as was discussed in many of your comments, to get people clearance while in school in order to give them a leg up to get positions. i have four pages of questions i'm going to ask from the d.o.d. representatives about the implementation of those laws and then the request to the rest of the i.c. as to how they can look to administratively, perhaps, implement some of these recommendations and i'm going to submit that for the record. i want to show my support for the ranking member's questions concerning michael ellis. i too received, from len carlson
of the d.o.d. o.i.g., the conclusion that none of the withins in the hiring process indicate there was any pressure from the white house or any political pressure whatsoever. very concerned about political influence and then i want to note, as i have before when we raised this issue, nancy pelosi personally sent a letter requesting that he not be installed. while the white house was found to have no interference, we have all of us in our files a letter from the speaker herself indicating her opposition. i also want to note a letter from october 21, concerning the impacts of vaccine mandates. upon our staffing. chris stewart will be asking questions which i support on the impact on our work force of diversity with vaccine mandates. and then i want to ask each of you a yes or no question. we're going an investigation. some of us are on the armed services committee and the intelligence committee. we are very concerned about what has happened in afghanistan and specifically the issues of what
occurred on august 29 where a drone strike killed innocent people. i've had the opportunity to question secretary austin, general milley, joe mckenzie, deputy sherman, our concern is on intelligence and operational failures, what the protocols were, what the intelligence review and analysis. i've got a fairly simple for you, yes or no, i'm looking for individuals who were involved in a specific time period from the time period where the target was identified until the shot was taken and i'm going to to the ask whether or not you were directly involved and specifically the question is, during that time period, where the target is identified to the time at the the shot was taken, were you directly involved in either reviewing the intelligence or advising d.o.d. concerning shot doctrine protocols or providing oversight or in the chain of analysis of intelligence concerning the tragic august 29. again i'm looking for your
direct involvement, not just subordinates. it's about reviewing intelligence, advising d.o.d., shot doctrine protocols providing oversight in that time period where the target was first identified until the shot was taken and general, i'll start with you. were you directly involved? >> no. >> secretary? >> no. >> director? >> no. >> director? >> no. >> general? >> no. mr. turner: ok. did you have direct subordinates not down the chain of line, direct seaboardalities under you who were involved in that time period? >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> congressman i need to take that for the record to be fully
sure on it. mr. turner: that's fine. one last question. we're very concerned about the protocols that occurred that day in determines to take the shot. we've heard from the intelligence community, we've heard from d.o.d. are you or is anyone directly under you involved in reviewing the protocols that were utilized that day in determining that the drone strike would be taken? >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no, congressman. mr. turner: thank you so much. i appreciate it. yield back. mr. schiff: mr. carson. mr. carson: limited opportunities for promotion is cited in i.c. employee exit surveys as a top reason for i.c. employees resigning from their agencies. what are you doing to address the source of frustration amongst departing officers and especially for those with diverse backgrounds?
also, what steps are your agencies taking to appeal to applicants with diverse national origins, heritages, especially those who may have fluency or proficiency in critical languages and cultural skills? are there specific barriers these groups face coming into the i.c.? are there disclosures on s.f.-86 forms? and what areas for improvement have you identified for extending outreach to rural and underrepresented communities? in terms of disclosures would something like participation in a protest in college or b.l.m. rally be an impediment to the kind of acceptance into the i.c. as opposed to other who was participated in protests who have still been accepted in the i.c. and even become executives, would that be a hindrance to someone of color? ms. haines: do you want me to
start? mr. carson: let's rock 'n' roll. ms. haines: sounds good. first of all, what steps are we taking about lack of opportunities for to promotion. so as i mentioned to representative himes, one of the things is getting data on whether there's the same gap in hiring between applicants and those hired in minority spaces in the context of promotion boards and digging in to try to understand whether or not there is in effect challenges and barriers that are associated with minorities going through the promotion process that need to be addressed. and that is one piece of what we're doing. additionally, what we are trying to do is work through the affinity networks and i noted in my opening statement and the employee resource groups across the i.c. to better have an opportunity, first of all, to
meet -- i meet with them every month to going through affinity networks to talk about the issues they're seeing so they can talk to me about what they're perceiving as challenges among the communities within the work force that they're addressing. we support their doing a variety of events and outreach to lift up some of the challenges so we can try to address those questions as they come about and to support those communities as much as we can in the context of the work. it's an ongoing process, we need more data and better understand what's happening but we are trying to communicate with the work force as much as possible to address issues we are finding. the next piece in terms of appealing to diverse communities and sort of getting out to those different communities, we're doing a variety of thing, you'll hear, i think, from all my colleague, different ways in which they're approaching this. one of them is obviously
including geographical diversion as you identified, our i.t. centers for academic excellence, it's a program that's been around now for a couple of years. it provides long-term partnerships with u.s. colleges and universities through competitively awarded grants. they're designed to increase awareness of the i.c. mission and culture and to do so in ethnically and geographically diverse communities. so we are working to expand that program as much as possible so as to be able to get out to areas that don't normally see us in a sense. don't necessarily have contact with folks who are in the i.c. and we are also working through our recruitment process in order to try to make sure that we've got recruiters that are actually able to be more thoughtful about what are the different issues that will come up in recruitment for specific populations, questions that they might have for example about the application process. i will tell you flat out,
participation in a peaceful protest is not an issue in relation to hiring. let me let other people have abopportunity to respond. >> the only thing i'd add just as a specific example of outreach is we did a program in june this past june, over a couple of days at the agency in partnership with the national society of black engineers because not only do we have a -- an intense interest in improving minority hire, we have an intense interest in hiring people with stem cells -- skills as well. about 150 students took part over a couple of day that helped to generate a couple dozen applications to the agency after that. i offer that as one example. >> the thing i would add would be in terms of identifying subjectivity in our promotion processes where individual guess to boards if you par days pate in some of these boards as i have over the many decades you hear comment you hear questions and you hear things talked about
that aren't objective, they don't get directly at the qualifications of an individual. it's more would somebody's chemistry fit with another group's chemistry. ensuring we identify those types of things and making sure they're not part of the process. i agree with the barrier identification piece, i think that's very important. and then we're working very closely within the department of defense with the undersecretary of defense for personal readiness, gil cisneros, on how do we have better outreach to various hbcu's, n.s.i.'s, and as undersecretary cisneros talks about hispanic serving institutions too to ensure twhef right outreach, the right social ways of engaging with those vines. we have a concerted effort going on within the pentagon, and i'd welcome an opportunity to come back and brief you on that, sir.
mr. carson: lastly, wrapping up. peta is designated by many as a hate group and there are people, i mean the southern poverty law center, i think their process is very flawed because you have one or two people making a designation as to who is and who is not a hate group when they have an ax to grind with certain individuals. do you discriminate against someone who has a religious affiliation? and that real jus affiliation or belief system may have very destructive views as it relates to blacks and jews and their origin story, do you discriminate against them even though their affiliation isn't necessarily listed amongst hate group, how do you make the determination? do you comb through someone's social media and they had a position 10 years ago being critical of the u.s. foreign policy or police brutality? >> congressman, i'll speak for the department of defense. within our organizations we're focusing more on behaviors and group representation if you will. if someone is a member of a
group, that may not necessarily indicate that they are actually doing things that are detrimental to what we consider to be the mission or our readiness or their ability to serve. we are trying to focus on those behaviors that we are concerned about and less on what somebody's past affiliation or association with a group might be. mr. carson: thank you, i yield back. mr. schiff: mr. wenstrup. mr. wenstrup: i want to associate myself with the concerns about michael ellis from there, the intelligence community's need for diversity of talents and characteristics are very clear. as well this work requires a common thread of selfless, apolitical, patriotic service with honesty, honor and integrity along with a willingness to uphold and defend our constitution. i think that's pretty clear. but nothing has been as diverse and incluesive as covid-19.
killing and affecting humankind across the globe. honesty and transparency have been at a minimum for many that should have been able to shed the most insight about covid-19. seemingly, the honest, factual, scientific opinions of many experts have been ignored or given way to those that claim there's nothing to see here, move along. director haines i want to thank you in advance for reaching out to schedule a meeting with me on this topic and the relationship between this committee and the intelligence community. i appreciate that. some call gain of function experiments the production of a chimera. in this case that means experimentally combininging components from two viruses into one. the terms are interchangeable. using what i have learned or not learned from the intelligence opportunities i have by the virtue of being on this select committee as well as what i have learned from my own open source research, i wonder if "vanity
fair" or the intercept's foia request involving the coe alliance led by peter dazig and drastic, a science research group, have all done a deeper dive dive than our own intelligence community? a member of the drastic team, giles, a data scientist from new zealand, told "vanity fair" that i can't be sure that covid-19 originated from research related accident or infection from a sampling trip but i'm 100% sure there was a massive coverup. in 2012, dr. fauci was asked about this type of research and he said the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risk. 2015, dr. ralph barak and a doctor of china, published their work to create a chimera using coronaviruses. dr. fauci's email, january 31, 2020, vierlings kristen anderson
emails dr. fauci suggesting the coronavirus may have been genetically engineered. the next day, february 1, dr. fauci emails his deputy with the headline important and sends the 2015 doctor barrett article about creating a chimera from a coronavirus. april 18 of 2020, peter dazig of u.s.-funded ecohealth alliance working with chinese doctors thanks dr. fauci for publicly saying there was no evidence this was genetically engineered he does so without any evidence it came from any other source. peter dazig also got a letter published in "the lancet" stating the covid coronavirus did not come from the lab and it is reported that 26 of the 27 that signed the letter had connections to the wuhan lab, writing this with no evidence that it came from nature. january of 2021, a doctor concluded there's a 99.8 probability that covid came from the lab versus nature.
dr. ralph barak in 2021 said it's possible to create this without any evidence it was altered we know china removed 5u8 access to their database cob taining the genetic sequencing research. china didn't report what they knew or when they knew it, including that the virus spreads human-to-human. they le vied sanctions on us a trail for calling for investigations and transparency we know no covid-19 virus has been found in nature, not in wet marks or livestock, as howfns animals have been tested, except maybe the humanized mice used in research as the wuhan labs. peter dazig was the only american representative on the w.h.o. review teasm to me it's reasonable to conclude that considering this research at the wuhan lab and his involvement that his interest in discovery or lack thereof may align with china's. there's much unknown, much unrevealed, the question is who should be the investigators and
who should be investigated. as more information emerge, peter dazig and the waib find themselves at the center of this debate. why was he the only american appointed to this mission? i want to finish with this, as the "washington post" editorial board asked about peter dazig, they asked, why did he not disclose the 2018 proposal to darpa for researched on bat coronaviruses with the w.i.b. and other which is called for engineering a modification onto spike proteins of chimeric viruses to make them infect human cells the way the pandemic did? what does he know about the database of viruses taken offline in 2019 and never brought back? does he know what research the w.i.b. may have done on its own during or after their collaboration? what was being done at the w.i.b. in the months before the pandemic? mr. dazig must answer these questions before congress. his grants were federal funds and it's entirely appropriate for congress to insist on
accountability and transparency. he might help the world understand what really happened in wuhan. these are good questions and comments from "the washington post." i suggest that this committee should be investigating and holding hearings on the origins of covid-19 and any coverups. and do so in coordination with our intelligence community. my only question, can i get that commitment from our chairman and from you, director? mr. chairman? >> director, would you care to respond? ms. haines: i have great respect for your knowledge on these issues and your passion on the question of trying to get to the origins of covid and as you know, we have done a lot of work on this question and have briefed committee members on our analysis and we're happy to
provide additional briefings on that. as the chairman and the committee sees fit. >> i do look forward to our conversation that's scheduled. mr. chairman? mr. schiff: i'm happy to consider your question. >> i yield back. mr. schiff: ms. speier. ms. speier: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for your presentation this is morning. let me start with you, general nakasone. that particular inspector general's report found that you had done nothing wrong, is that correct? general nakasone: that is correct. ms. speier: is it also true that the general counsel for the n.s.a. is the only general counsel of the i.c. not confirmed by the senate?
general nakasone: i'd have to check on that. i know that our general counsel is not confirmed by the senate i'm not sure of the entire -- ms. speier: it is my understanding that it is not confirmed and is the only counsel that is do not if you could get back to me. i'm curious to what extent that is problematic as it relates to the i.c. community in general. director haines. my understanding is that the position of chief officer for i.c. diversity, equity and inclusion has not yet been filled. is that true? ms. haines: yes. i think the posting just closed or maybe closing in the next week or so ms. speier: it's not an issue of having difficulty filling it, it's that the time frame hasn't been exhausted. ok. for each of you, i would like for you to return to the committee information about the
numbers, the percentages of latinos within each of your services, both in the analyst area and in the administrative area. because to me, based on what i've seen historically, it is the most underrepresented universe in the i.c. and yet it represents 18% of the population in this country. so i think as we look at areas where you have to do additional work, it's particularly important to do it in the area where we can see more latinos being hired. director burns, you indicated that in having executives evaluated for both bonuses and promotions, you are now looking
at their ability to and effectiveness in promoting diverse persons into the senior ranks. is that true? mr. burns: that's correct. ms. speier: has anyone who has been evaluated under that new rubric been found to be inadequate in their efforts and not been promoted? mr. burns: there's at least one example i know of in terms of a bonus where there was a reaction against performance that didn't live up to those standards in terms of not just promotion but also creating an inclusive atmosphere but i'd be glad to get back to you with more than that. ms. speier: i would appreciate that. director haines, i think this is important to do across the i.c. are you committed to doing that, to make sure that in senior management we see the diversity
we need and that evaluate those who are making those decisions and either not promote them or not provide bonuses if they do not succeed in promoting those who should be successful in that regard? ms. haines: thank you, congresswoman. yes. our personnel evaluations include this as a factor and i'm absolutely committed to it. an additional question that's come up is whether or not we should be asking people in interview, for example, whether or not they have a plan for diversity and inclusion and that's something we're looking at as something that should be potentially included. ms. speier: i want to underscore the fact of not just having that looked at but that there be repercussions if they are not successful in helping to elevate persons in that regard. ms. haines: yes. ms. speier: let me also ask about stem tall don't all of
you. i'm very concerned that we are not attracting the stem talent into the i.c. that we desperately need as we move forward and i am exploring and would like for you to consider and report back to me whether or not we should be creating an rotc-like entity in colleges for the i.c., because without doing something like that, i feel we're going to fail in that regard with that, i yield back the balance of my time. mr. schiff: mr. stewart. mr. stewart: thank you, chairman. thanks to all of you. i recognize your many years of service and your commitment to serving and protecting our country. before i go into my topic, i'd like to again identify with the ranking member's legitimate and deep concerns regarding mr. ellis and the situation that has been described. on september 9, president biden
ordered all federal department and agencies to, and i'm going to quote here, implement a program to require covid vaccinations for all federal employees. the outcome being if they don't comply removal from federal service. i want to be really, really clear. i am vaccinated. i have always encouraged others to become vaccinated. but let me give you an example of, i think, that is illustrated with our concerns on the topic here. i recently talked to a young woman, she's african-american. she works for a relevant agency that you all represent. she's already had covid. she has antibodies because othat. she's expecting her second child and she has very, very difficult pregnancies. she does not want to take the vaccine. her doctor has encouraged her not to take the vaccine while she's expecting. and yet she's facing termination in the next few weeks if she doesn't. she asked me for help. and i didn't know what to say to
her. and i'd be curious what any of you would say to this young person. i have here in my hand multiple studies from the c.d.c. and others that indicates for various reasons and for some reasons we may not understand, the minority community is vaccinated at a significantly lower rate than our whites. perhaps a mandate is a good idea. and we can discuss that. but if we're going to fire critical employees including from the minority community, a community that we're trying to recruit and to retain, not find reasons to terminate, i think we should discuss that. and discuss the implications of that. what happens when we fire a significant portion, and by the way as you all know because we asked the question last week, it's not a small percentage. it may be 10, 20, 30, 40%. now we hope it's in the that high but that's about where we
are, pretty close. what's the impact on our minority personnel? as i've indicated, they're vaccinated at a lower rate. how do we replace them, it takes 12 to 24 months to recruit and then go through the security screens. these are the questions i think we should answer. and have a conversation about. so with that in mind, i guess i would ask all of you, director, i'll begin with you, what's the implications and what's the outcome on our national security if we have to terminate a significant number of employees including minority employees? does that concern you? and how do we address that? and it's not a train wreck that's coming years from now it's within a few weeks. ms. haines: thank you, congressman. i think to start with, for the woman that you mentioned, i would indicate that if she is
concerned about medical exception she should apply for one and we have -- >> she has and been denied up to this point. ms. haines: we take our guidance for that from the centers for disease control and the folks who do the medical process for that. that has been my experience and certainly if there's anybody that needs help we can look into this, if there's a medical concern. i think the second piece to your larger issue, we're finding at least, i look at odni and the numbers are quite small in terms of ones that have indicated they are n.o.w. not vaccinated. and we have, you know -- >> director, i don't want to interrupt you but it is relatively small in the odni awe bz i suppose you know it's not nearly so small in some of the
other agencies. ms. haines: we'll let others speak for themselves. it is something where we're not anticipating that it is going to be an issue for mission. i think in terms of the minority issue that you identified there is vaccine hesitancy in minority populations at a greater rate than there is in others and it is something that we have been addressing. i haven't -- what we've done is looked to try to promote it across the board as obviously the administration has more generally and to ensure that everybody as the best information that they can on these issues and we are pursuing that, you know -- >> my time is up. i'm going to submit questions for the record for all of you because this is enormously important and we seem to be walking blindly toward it. we may fire a meaning. portion of our intelligence community, including a disproportionate number of our minority intelligence officials,
what is the impact on our minority hiring? what's the impact on our national security? and a list of other questions. again, it just doesn't seem like we've given it nearly the thought and the consideration we should. i'll follow up with questions with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. schiff: mr. quick lee. mr. quigley: thank you. we are simply going to have to retitle what we call our hearings. next time we do this we need to tabulate diversity and oh my god anything but diversity. because today we have continued what we have heard much of our lives that somehow inclusivety and diversity works against merit and if they have nothing to do -- and that they have nothing to do with each other. it implies diversity is unequal to quality we know that any notion that increased inclusion works against merit is just plain wrong. indeed, inclusiveness enhances
and is critical to capabilities. but who am i to say these thicks? so i'll quote someone else who actually has been in the worst of the field. he wrote in 2018, i served many years in war zones where incorporating the principled inclusion was critical to our success. the sus facing more complex threats to our national security than any time in our history. the art of intelligence is about fostering an inclusive environment which means actively incorporating different ideas, viewpoints and backgrounds to understand these threats and to present policymakers with the best options for dealing with them. the most enlightened leaders embrace this approach and swivel their judgments based on the input they actively seek. our country's unique and rich melting pot is an exceptional competitive advantage.
and force multiplier for our intelligence community. socially and ethically -- ethnically diverse groups enhance creativity, innovation and performance. a lesson the c.i.a. teaches about the power of inclusion where our differences make us stronger, defenders of our core ideals of freedom, liberty and democracy. so who wrote this in 2018? daniel hoffman, a former chief of station with central intelligence agency with a combined 30 years of distinguished government service including high level positions not wonl the c.i.a. but also with the u.s. military, u.s. department of state, u.s. department of commerce. his assignments included tours of duty in the former soviet union, europe, and war zones in both the middle east and south asia. so i hope we can talk about such issues as we go forward. because apparently if we can't
appeal to your heart only choice is to appeal to your brain. upton sinclair, when he wret "the jungle" was appealing to our heart, looking at horrible working conditions. when president roosevelt read "the jungle" he said i've been tysoned, aim at their heart and hit a little lower. i don't know how else to do this but to use this distinguished panel to tell us, if we can't appeal to your heart, to if you think in a diverse world the skill set out there must be used that can work in that field and a lot of them in most of those areas can't look like me. in the brief time i have left, director is there anything you want to add to that? >> no, i just was going to say, congressman, i entirely agree with dan hoffman thnd equote you raised. he's a fine career officer.
he's right. you see this in hard places around the world where our colleagues are doing hard jobs today trying to operate in very complicated environments where just as dan hoffman said, our diversity is a huge asset. diversity of languages, of understanding of other cultures, the ability to do our work overseas. the same is true with regard to analysts at our headquarters as well. their ability to understand what's going to be most important about pieces of intelligence to convey to policymakers. i think it's -- i've always thought throughout my career first at state and now at c.i.a. that diversity is a huge national security asset for the united states and i see it every day at c.i.a. ms. haines: i want to add my concurrence to that. when i first came in and we went through an exercise with the leads of the intelligence community to identify what are our priorities. and we talked about substance and we talked about the fact that china is a critical
priority for the intelligence community. but top of the list for which there was absolutely uniform support among every leader of the intelligence community, all of the people on this panel were part of that, was talented and diverse work force. recruiting and retaining a talent and diverse work force. i think it is just fundamental to our success in the future that we actually bring that work force forward. because they're the ones that will need to address the chamgs that we're facing and there's nobody that saw any tension between diverse and talent. it is absolutely fundamental and together. >> i would add i had the honor of serving with dan hoffman in a number of locations. just in the last year, last six month, dan and i exchanged issues on a number of topics. he's going through a lot of challenges in his personal life but a great american. and we should listen to the words he's saying in that
regard, sir. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. schiff: mr. crawford. mr. draw spord feather everybody on this side of the aisle agrees with the comments of mr. hoffman, i don't think there's any dispute about that. i thank the panel for being here. i'd like to associate myself with the comments of the ranking member with regards to the unfair treatment lieutenant commander ellis and i'd like to acknowledge the comments and concerns voiced by mr. stewart. director haines, i heard a counterintelligence event scaleup in my district. i want to thank you personally for your personal involvement facilitating that event. it was very well attend the presenters, mr. orlando from ncsc and the f.b.i. were the primary presenters along with sisa but thank you for your direct involvement in that. it was very well received. switching gears now i want to
move to some questions for the panel. does anyone on the panel disagree that the intelligence community views the border crisis as a national security threat? do any of you dispute that a wall or fence enhances security? is it true that each of your agencies are protected by walls or fence or some infrastructure that each of your agencies take measure to control physical access? that's true? does anyone disagree that eliminating foarns walls around your agency would present both physical and counterintelligence threats to your agencies? is it the responsibility of the united states government to control access to the united states? is that a yes? thank you. i'm deeply concerned that there are security double standards in the biden administration and the democrat majority. the president is protected by wall, including the walls around
the white house and the new fence around his beach house. the capitol was protected by walls for months and i think the speaker would like a permanent wall. yet despite the need for walls to protect themselves the president and congressional democrats are blocking the border wall. there are growing calls by the adprgs for deploying the national guard to assist with supply chain crisis yet the same administration is refusing to mobilize the national guard to help fortify our border. so to the panel let me ask you this. is it possible far terrorist ato the cross the border? yes. is it possible for transnational criminal organizations to smuggle drugs and weapons across the border? yes. is it possible for human smugglers to move caravans up to and across the border? yes. are these threats increase, decreasing or staying the same?
could we agree they're increasing? i don't hear any dispute on that. last year there were over 1.7 million apprehensions along the southwest border. in in the past few months the world witnessed 10,000-plus haitians camped out on the texas border there's open source reporting of approximately 60,000 more on the way. not including migrants of other nationalities. mr. chairman, i would suggest that we have a classified hearing on the i.c.'s capabilities to collect and share intelligence relevant to the western hemisphere and threats to our border. is that something you'd entertain that request, mr. chairman? >> i'd be happy to entertain the request, thank you. mr. crawford: i've got a little time left. i want to direct some questions to director haines and again thank you for your assistance with facilitating the event i mentioned before. i would asked how is odni
postured to support more outreach events such as the one you helped facilitate in my district? ms. haines: thank you, shir. thank you for facilitating the one you did in arkansas and the -- from my understanding of the director of the national counterintelligence and security center that participated it went very well. i think it was hopefully effective for the folks that attended. this is something that we do as a matter of course. we look to facilitate these types of events. we have den them around the country. many times they are facilitated by members of congress we work with the f.b.i. in those sishes and also with the department of homeland and try to do it in a way that's useful and just basically providing information that helps educate both state and local authorities as well as the private sector and other who was an interest in these issues. so look forward to doing additional ones as people --
mr. crawford: we have members on both sides of the aisle who would like to replicate that are there metrics in place to ensure ncsc and others are focused on such outreach? ms. harvetion ines: we report on that regularly. mr. schiff: mr. swalwell. mr. swalwell: i think the most urgent and important issue facing the work force today are the terrorizing attacks happening globally which are referred to as anomalous health i want dent -- incidents. i guess my first question, director burn, considering we are not doing this to our own people, they are not doing this to themselves, public reports suggest they're happening in an escalating fashion worldwide. can we stop calling them incidents and call them attacks? mr. burns: well what i know, congressman, having talked to dozens a dozens of my colleagues
who have been victimized is that real harm is being done to real people and we take each report very seriously, i know all my colleagues do across the intelligence community. i think we worked very hard to improve care. the care that our officers and sometimes their family members deserve. we have mounted and extraordinarily vigorous effort to get to the bottom of the ke question of who and what may be causing these as well. we're going to work as hard as we can to come up with, to get to the bottom of this and come up with answers to those questions. i know that's a conviction shared aamongst all my colleagues on this panel. mr. swalwell: we don't often have open hearings but perhaps the individuals or country responsible for these attacks are watching. i wonder if you have a message for those who are conducting these attacks as to what we will
do when we find out who is doing this? mr. burns: we take extraordinarily seriously the harm that's being done. and we are determined to get to the bottom of this. and i don't think anyone should doubt the sense of urgency that we have or our determination to do that. we owe to it you, we owe it to the president to be discipline and objective. and balancing that with our compassion and sense of urgency as well. that's what we are determined to do as well. as we conduct this very serious investigation. mr. swalwell: and we yes it to the victims across the i.c., the state department, and i know you're doing that and it took about 10 years to find and hunt down osama bin laden with, you know, a works for that was dedicated to it. i hope the same effort is being made to final out who does this and when we do find out who does this, i think you'll find
bipartisan support that this is going to be a response that is beyond, if it's a foreign country, just closing down a couple of consulates. that it is going to have to be a very, very severe response. mr. burns: we are taking this very, very seriously, as i said. the senior officer leegd our task force on this played a central role in the successful hunt for lane more than a decade ago. and so i think that's a pretty clear indication of our determination, our sense of purpose on this. mr. swalwell: thank you, director we may not be able to persuade our colleagues or at least the ranking member of the value of diversity as far as it just being the 21st century, the right thing to do, it relates to equality but operationally, general nakasone, would you agree with your folks are listening in on, say, a countermarkets investigation that you're aiding the
intelligence community, perhaps maybe having a native spanish speaker would be helpful? yes or no? general nakasone: yes, congressman. if i might, let me give you an operational example that really depicts this. during the afghan retrograde we did a tremendous amount of support to our forces forward, a lot of that was done out of the national security agency georgia of which we had several of our linguists that came from afghanistan, born there, became citizens of our country, served within our military, in fact, one that was significantly injured and understood the words being spoken and the texture and context behind that. that's the power of diversity. that's why it's so important to us as an agency. that's why i think it's so critical to our intelligence agency. >> thank you. would you agree that there are
many, many operations only a woman could conduct? >> i think our most successful operations are ones where we draw not just from the exceptional trade craft of our officers but also from diversity as well. mr. swalwell: thank you, i yield back. mr. schiff: mr. mullin. mr. mullin: first i'd like to associate with our ranking member's remark. michael ellis. i think it's important we get those answers with that being said, you know, most if not all of you are very familiar with my intimate involvement with evacuating americans out of afghanistan. the ongoing evacuation process that is trying to take place. and i want to speak a little bit to director burns and director -- about what led up to the complete failure that took
place prior to our complete pullout of afghanistan in april -- or august 30. it is reported that we -- that 130,000 people, the state department reported that 30,000 people were evacuated prior to the final departure 30 august. how many of those were amsets, americans? >> congressman, i don't know the answer to that. mr. mullin: director burns, how many were americans? >> i'll get you the exact number. mr. mullin: how do we not know this? we evacuated 130,000 people. that was touted as a success. at the same time while my team and myself was trying to get americans out, we had them at the gaetz trying to get the gate open and -- at the gates and couldn't get the gate open.
and we counted it a success. the word came out that every american who wanted out could get out. and then thed were came back that the president said that well, there's roughly 100 people still left that wanted to get out. this is on august 31. and we're telling -- you're telling me today that we still don't know of those 130,000 people the state department counted as a success of evacuation that we don't know how many were actually americans? that seems, i mean, really odd to me. >> i think the you were in, the number of u.s. citizens as i understand it, i will confirm the exact number for you, was well over 6,000. but we'll get the exact number for you. mr. mullin: this is the problem with the chaos and amount of problems here. since 31 august, the number has changed from the amount of americans that we said were left there. currently my team is in possession of 124amcits and
nlpr's. currently. we are in possession of 120 to 124amcits and nlpr's. started the week with 120, now there's 124. this is what i was told this week about the evacuation. when you get them out we'll help you get them to america. when you get them out of afghanistan we'll help you get them to america. i think a lot of the problem is we don't know. let me run through some numbers. august 31, the president said there were 100 to 200 americans still in afghan staen who had intentions to leave. every single one that my team has worked with has been willing to do everything they could to get out. everything they could to get out. including and lpr with her 3-year-old daughter who died of an infection after us tri-ing to get her out for two weeks, two weeks. and we had her and couldn't get
the state department to open the door we had her to the border of tajikistan and the tajikistan ambassador literally told me, i'm sorry, mr. mullin, but i was told not to assist you in any way. that was a quote. quote. and seven days later, the 3-year-old girl died. yet we still don't have a handle on how many americans were in there. for instance, late last week the state department estimated that there was at least 176, these aren't round number, these are exact numbers. at least 176 who still want to leave among the 363 total american citizens in afghanistan. that was -- those aren't round number, those are exact numbers. then yesterday, the pentagon said, the number of americans in afghanistan is still at 439.
why is there a big difference between what the state department is saying and what the department of defense is saying? >> congressman, i don't have an answer for you. mr. mullin: dr. burns? mr. burns: i appreciate the efforts you have made, as you know our officer have worked very hard as well working with colleagues from state and elsewhere to ensure that u.s. citizens who are seeking to be evacuated are evacuated. that's continuing right now. from my own experience -- mr. mullin: i'm going to stop you there a second. why sit that i can't get help getting these other 124 out? i have 124 identified work paperwork. we've been holding on to them for three weeks. why can't we put pressure on tajikistan, uzbekistan or pakistan and say let them cross? why is it that i was told if i
fly them out which we'll have to raise money to do if you fly them out we'll help get them to america. if they were serious about it, why can't they get them out? i can get them to the border and get them across, i can do that work. when you say you're willing -- that you're working as hard as you can, why can be the we move them? >> congressman, we're absolutely determined, the president has made clear, all of us, not just on this this panel but state and elsewhere, to ensure that americans get out and i'm glad to follow up with you. i know my colleagues are, to help ensure that that happens. we're determined to do that. mr. mullin: please do. i have 124 ready to come home. i yield back. mr. schiff: mr. castro. mr. castro: thank you, all of you, for your testimony today on the important issue of diversity in the intelligence community. thank you for showing up. i think we probably went four years, the last four years without any of the folks in your position showing up on this topic.
so thank you. i have a question for director haines. last year the g.a.o. conducted a review of the intebltion community's progress toward a more diverse work force finding that their percentages of minority staff were still, quote, well below benchmarks in the federal work force and civilian work force. the g.a.o. also found that only three of 17 intelligence community elements had current strategic plans. what has changed since then? and are you using the g.a.o.'s recommendations as part of your own strategic plan? and then also, and i'm working off of the packet that i assume y'all handed over to us on page 5, the demographic diversity in the i.c. and following up on the point that representative speier made, the most underrepresented group in the intelligence community and in the federal work force is the latino community, by far. they make up 18.6% of the pop
population. and 7%. i.c. it's a huge gap. i would ask you because that's the largest gap by far, to prioritize hiring, recruiting, promoting latinos in the intelligence community. if you could address those things. then i have at least one more question, hopefully. director haines: thank you very much, representative castro. appreciate your own work on these issues. first of all in response to the d.a.o. report there wasn't a report before i arrived. i'm not responsible for it. to do d.o.d. joint strategy to eadvance diversity and inclusion in the intelligence community. it is still a document we are working off of. it is dated, it was done, developed, during 2019 and issued 2020. it stretches forward from 2020 to 2023. i think we are working on in a sense enhancing the ambition in that space.
with respect to hispanics, i couldn't agree more. i think you are absolutely right. when i look at o.d.9 in particular within the senior executive service, we are at 3%. it is really striking. and just very challenging. something we need to address. it is not a coincidence that the first university that i went to for recruiting was florida international university, which has mostly hispanic student population. we worked with florida universities in that area to expand the outreach of my visit. i am working very hard in this area and absolutely agree that it has to be a priority in the context of our recruitment. mr. castro: i appreciate the efforts that c.i.a. and what's being done over there. >> congressman, the national security agency we have a focused effort right now at n.s.a. texas located in san
antonio. working with not only our cryptologic center down there but the broader academic community to include the university of texas, san antonio. where we have a tremendous population upon which we are going to hire from. this poses a tremendous opportunity for us. i look forward to coming back to the committee to talk about our successes. mr. castro: thank you. just the last point on this. as a member of this committee i'm asking you to close that gap in latino presence in the generals community. it is a huge gap. it's exclusionary. dr. haines, the second question for you -- director haines, the second question for you, i understand dodni is in the process of making the determination of holding white supremacist views would deem an individual unsuitable to hold a security clearance. where are you on that decision? and what's the odni doing to ensure white supremacists with a
history of promoting extreme views contrary to us us values don't get a security clearance to work in the national security position in government? director haines: thank you, representative. i am not aware of us having a particular decision before us. we have done a lot of work on these issues in relation to vetting and security. i can send you some information on this. mr. castro: thank you. with that i yield back. chair schiff: mr. kelly. mr. kelly: thank you, mr. chairman. first i want to say i associate myself with the remarks made by representative nunes with regard to michael ellis. diverse diversity, language, culture, language, and thought is a huge force multiplier for our intelligence community. i also know from 35 years of experience in the d.o.d. that often the things that we do measure policies and procedures, they make us feel good but do not measure results an effectiveness.
i hope that you guys will do things and have marks that make sure that we are effective in what we are doing. that we are not just following policies and procedures. while not a panacea to the i.c.'s rue krooting challenges, the unique characteristics of the careers you offer, the opportunity to conduct activities otherwise forbidden seem to be a compelling factor to join. this should include minority populations. director knack nakasone -- nakasone, general, focusing on diversity in recruiting, does our recruitment align with the demographics graduating from our colleges and universities? general nakasone: congressman, i think you have identified we can do better at. this is where i would say is that -- ail speak only for my agency. we have a tendency to only recruit from a certain part of the united states. and emphasize a certain part of the united states.
while we have been very focused on the east coast, we have to be much more broader across our nation. mr. kelly: i agree. i hope you take that for the record. that's important. general knacka nakasone, i have a few questions. make a few names staiments ask that you answer yes or no. if you want to further elaborate i'll allow that. do you agree the termination of the dual hat is highly unlikely to naturally occur without a significant and compelling man mandate to do so. the n.s.a. >> can you ask the question one more time? mr. kelly: do you agree the termination of the dual hat is highly unlikely to naturally occur without a significant and compelling man tate to do so. general nakasone: i agree. mr. keller: do you require cyber power requires a diversity of tools, techniques, and procedures and having two sides of the organization leveling being the sage pose an
unacceptable risk to both? general nakasone: do i not agree. mr. kelly: do you agree that support to u.s. cybercome has eroded n.s.a.'s ability to support national requirements. general nakasone: do i not agree. mr. kelly: do you agree an overemphasis on the n.s.a. relationship may retard u.s. cyber con's further development of cyber as an effective military capability? general nakasone: i do not agreement mr. kelly: the span of control to manage two or different organizations with different missions is wide and inspreesing. general nakasone: do i not agree. mr. kelly: do you agree the benefits arrive from the new dual hat commander have long been achieved? general nakasone: do i not agree. mr. kelly: do you agree that there are processes in place that encourage and facilitate collaboration across all levels of the mission? general nakasone: i would imagine you are speaking between the national security agency -- mr. kelly: yes.
general nakasone: at times. mr. kel cloi: -- mr. kelly: encouraging e-mission 20 do their areas is the next step and split the leadership roles? general nakasone: i do not agreement mr. kelly: each of the eight statements i asked you about were included in an unpublished assessment of the future leadership structure of the u.s. relationship cyber command. it was commissioned by deputy secretary of defense robert warrick and authorized by the co-chairs of the defense science board task force on cyber. whether or not you agree with each of the conclusions, do you believe that the co-chairs responsible for this assessment, james goslar and chris english have the expert knowledge necessary to undertake the assessment requested by deputy secretary warrick? general nakasone: i would agree that they have certain experience. i would, however, congressman, say that experience is based upon time. mr. kelly: as director of n.s.a. and commander of u.s. cyber come, are you aware of a specific data plap for
termination of the dual hat position? general nakasone: i am not. mr. kelly ln you reached full capability four years ago. can you tell me what fully operational capability means? general nakasone: a set of standards. congressman, four years ago that the command had to achieve. and they achieved those based upon a numeric raitding. mr. kelly: i rk knees the assessment was commissioned by d.o.d. not n.s.a. i'm concerned it was placed on the shelf for years. our staff director requested a copy of this assessment in july upon learning of its existence. the committee received a copy only after the markups for the 2020 budget -- 2022 budget was completed. i rise in supporter the provisions of the i.a.a. which provide additional reporting on these issues. we can hope to continue this discussion, mr. chairman. i want to give you an opportunity to expand spanned. with that i yield back after his answers , mr. chairman. general nakasone: thank you, congressman. i appreciate the opportunity to comment a little bit more fully. when i took over the role of
both the director of the national security agency and u.s. -- commander u.s. cyber command i committed my testimony to do an evaluation of the worth of the dual hat. i think the most important thing that i would add to this is the fact that the way that we approach that evaluation was the fact that it wasn't necessarily what's best for the national security agency, what's best for u.s. cyber command. what's best for the nation. in three-plus years what i have seen is the fact that the roles, mission and responsibilities of u.s. cyber command and national security agency are even more so converging in a domain cyber space that requires three things. it requires speed. it requires agill agility. and requires unity of effort. the successes we have been ail to across the 2018 elections, 2020 elections, and the recent ransomware attacks on our nation are based upon those ideas of being able to react with speed, react with agility.
and react with unity of effort. i think, this is from my experience both operationally as the commander, and as the director of n.s.a., that that would not have been possible with two separate organizations under two separate individuals. in terms of the question regarding the capabilities of the national security agency. the data i would welcome anti-data i would be more than happy to provide is across our mission sets whether it's adversaries, our crypt analytic capabilities, ability to break code, make code on our cybersecurity side. our ability to provide technical talent, our ability to provide indications to support the military forces. our abilities at the national security agency have never been better in my opinion. i think that's backed up by the customers we serve. the last thing i would say on that, it's not just about the mission, though. it's also about the people. if you take a look at the intelligence community, crime
and assessment, that's been taken over the past several years, what you'll see that n.s.a. ranks among the tops in the i.c. for our ability to do it. the final thing i would put on there is the fact that over the past several years we have had record recruiting years. an ability to track the best and brightest in the nation that want to come and work for our agency. i yield back to the chairman. chair schiff: thank you. mr. welch. mr. welch: thank you very much. i thank the panel. first of all the fact that all of you are here, as the chairman said, is an indication how absolutely seriously you take this. i also want to acknowledge the wonderful work over the years of my colleague, congresswoman speier for saying absolute -- staying absolutely focused on this. thank you. i want to go to the heart of the water which, director haines, you, i think, raised. is there any conflict between diversity and competence in
mission success? you want to speak directly to that? director haines: honestly, i think there is no tension. in fact i think they are mutually supporting of each other. which is to say i think as all of us have reflected, we believk in particular, you need a diversity of perspectives in order to actually understand the world. and the reality is we need that diversity in the i.c. to do our job most effectively. we want that talent. we see how important that talent is. and it is critical for us to be pursuing these together. i don't think we can get to either without the other. mr. welch: mr. powelltry, you have had a -- mr. moultrie, you have had an extraordinary career. i think 36 years. secretary moultrie: that's correct. mr. welch: you have been incredibly successful. i suspect things were different when you were starting out for
african-americans than they are today. and i would like you to speak to your personal journey and what changes have made and what you have seen given your responsibility about the benefit of a diverse work force in intelligence agencies. secretary moultrie: yes, congressman. i thank you for that question. i think it gets to the heart of the matter in terms of what opportunities are provided to individuals who are dedicated to serving their country not just people who may have served in uniform as i did. but individuals who want to be a part of something that's bigger than themselves. who understand the issues. who can get the security clearance and all those things. and provide them opportunities if they are a little different from us. i would support those opportunities. and i think that that's what's really been instrumental in helping me and i try to do with others. the point director haines was speaking to and general nakasone
spoke to earlier, is diversity in the mission. i say absolutely not. they are in completely in sync. in places, some of these things can't go into in an open hearing, in places where we have had coops, tremendous unrest, the only reason we know about these things we have had ling wises from these countries did -- linguists from these countries who understand culture and can talk to us hears what's happening in my contory, former country. here's what we need to do about it. that's happened much more than we can talk about in an open hearing. those things are insightful. not just for our leaders and policymakers. but also our senior decisionmakers. mr. welch: general berrier, the military has been a wonderful place for folks who didn't have opportunity to get opportunity to start appreciating and understanding and recognizing skills they didn't even know they had. what's the importance to you in
your mission about diversity? director burns: thank you for the question. it's extremely important for d.i.a. we need diversity of thought, diversity of background to be able to make the kinds of assessments and judgments that we are making and providing to the department of defense f we don't have dyers it, if we all look like me, it doesn't work. we need that diversity. mr. welch: i know, general nakasone and director burns, you feel the same way. the final area -- maybe the two of you could comment on, what are the pipelines? you have to be really creative like going down to florida state, going to places where there are people who don't traditionally get the interview opportunities. can you suggest any additional things that would be helpful where additional congressional authorities might be helpful for you to be successful?
director burns: congressman, while i can't suggest additional authorities, what i can offer are some of the examples that we have seen in the benefits we have been able to accrue from a broader supply chain. we have a large supply pool that comes out of our high school work study program. an ability to bring young people in in their junior and senior year, clear them, and have them work at ourcy and see what we do as a possibility going forward. general nakasone: the second piece i would add is the director summer program. over year over 2,000 people apply to be a director of summer intern. we are able to focus that that along a number of different aspects. to get after the issues of science, technology, and engineers, math metics. we hire over 80% of those people. that are cleared, have experience, and understand how we do business. mr. welch: thank you. >> the only thing i would add, congressman, we try to be as creative and energetic as we can in outreach. we just started a new
scholarship program, a fellowship program, which is aimed at applicants coming from and already serving institutions as well. that's already proving, i think, to be a huge asset for us. mr. welch: i want to end by expressing my gratitude for the hard work and seriousness of purpose. thank you. i yield back. chair schiff: mr. fitzpatrick. mr. fitzpatrick: thank you. thank you for being here. i want to direct my original questions to director moultrie. in september of this year several media outlets reported about calls general millie had with a general in the chinese army in october of 2020 and january of 2021. according to these press reports, general millie initiated these calls after he reviewed classified intelligence about the chinese government's assessment of the likelihood of an american attack. he reportedly spoke with the chinese to assure them their
assessment described in our intelligence was wrong. so according to these reports he reviewed classified information, he called a chinese general, and addressed the underlying content of that intelligence directly with the chinese military. that clearly raises potential counterintelligence concerns. my first question, has the government initiated a counterintelligence investigation related to general millie's discussion with the chinese military? >> not that i am aware of. mr. fitzpatrick: has o.d.n.i. initiated anything with the general whether he may have directly or indirectly revealed any sources or methods? director haines: no. mr. fitzpatrick: do you know whether the calls general millie had with general lee were recorded? >> not that i am aware of. mr. fitzpatrick: according to press reports, d.o.d. provided a summary note of his calls with chinese general li to the i.c. did you receive those summary notes?
>> i did not. mr. fitzpatrick: direct this question to director nakasone. i also want to reassert that i associate with the ranking member's remarks. the ranking member had asked about the allege the security violations of mr. ellis and who at the state department was involved in making those allegations. do you know who made the allegations? general nakasone: i do not. mr. fitzpatrick: you can't provide any dea dee tails? general nakasone: i cannot. mr. fitzpatrick: undersecretary moultrie, on september 23 we wrote to the d.o.d. about this issue that i referred to earlier regarding general millie. asking for materials related to these calls, including a list of all calls general millie had with the chinese officials during this time. copies of the underlying intelligence that reportedly prompted general melly to reach out to the chinese general, all
recordings, scrangs -- transcripts, and has not given any of those to us by the d.o.d. yet. can we receive them promptly so we can assess the ownter terrorism concerns ourself? >> sir, that's not my area. secretary moultrie: i will take your questions back to the department. make sure those questions are heard by the department. mr. fitzpatrick: lastly, i want to turn to the issue of artificial intelligence. we are significantly behind, this is based on my assessment having been to the majority of the agencies i.c., having come from the i.c. myself, that our challenge with a.i. and machine learning is not a technological one. it is a process and bureaucratic challenge of a system that is very archaic in many regards. what are we doing as part of the
i.c. to partner with the private sector, number one, but more importantly to look at the processes that we have in place, the architecture of the framework of how our agencies are operating that we are going to be able to pivot to keep up with china and focus on the technological developments that we need to make to totally transform the i.c., totally transform the department of defense? >> congressman, if i might, i would like to invite you to the national security agency for us to talk a little bit about the infrastructure, the data, the tools, and the personnel, the training that goes into that. i think that that will provide a good foundation for where we are headed. general nakasone: and i think for the most part we are leading much of what is going on in the commercial sector as well. >> i would also like to invite you back to give you an overview of our mars program infusing the greatest and latest. we have the greatest innovation
office taitions the best of what industry can offer. director haines: i'll just add that from the i.c. perspective we have a science and technology director that works with the science and technology directors of each of the elements within the i.c. to support the work being done in our official intelligence. i agree with you that we have a lot of work to do and this is the space we are focused on. secretary moultrie: i would add the deputy secretary of defense is leading a major effort for a.i. across the department of defense and invite you to hear that briefing, sir. >> i mentioned the example of excel railing -- accelerating our process. a lot has to do with a.i. and machine learning. i couldn't agree with you more with doing more and more. mr. fitzpatrick: i want to thank you for your service. very important. i appreciate you. i yield back. chair schiff: representative
demings. miss mrs. demings: thank you so much, mr. chairman. thank you to all of you for being here today. to discuss diversity, equity, inclusion, and arkansas sessibility. accessibility in the i.c. community. i really do believe that there are hundreds of thousands, maybe more, of talented young men and women, the brightest and the best, who are waiting for us to create opportunities for them to serve our great nation in this very special way through the i.c. community. they don't all look like me and they don't all look like i. they look like america. and that's something i believe every member of this committee should celebrate. i want to thank you for the work that you have done. i know that we still have work to do, but i have been pleased that we are at least moving in the right direction. director burns, if i could start
with you. you talked about the sense of urgency as it pertains to the on-boarding process. and the obstacles that the 600 days that usual period that it takes create for some of the young men and women that i refer to. you talked about -- you thought that 180 days would be more ideal. what will it take to get to that? director burns: it's going to take a sustained effort. we are determined to accomplish that never the next couple years. what it takes is applying artificial intelligence and machine learned learning and showing we have an electronic not a manual process. we can't cut any corners or security clearances. but we have a deep responsibility there. we can accelerate the process by taking advantage of new technologies. we learned some of this over the course of the pandemic experience. in other words, what are the kinds of things we can do virtually to help speed the
process. mrs. demings: as a former police chief i would never scug suggest we cut security clearances. i believe you indicated this diversity and inclusion and accessibility is like your -- i think you said your second objective in terms of priorities. i'm just trying to understand how do we get to the point of opening doors for the talent that's out there so we can improve the function of the i.c. community? director burns: i think it involves continued progress and a sense of urgency at every stage. and recruiting in the on-boarding process, retention and mentoring, and then especially in demonstrating that there is a clear professional pathway all the way to the senior most levels of our agency for officers whose performance warrants that. whatever their background. that's what we are determined to achieve. mrs. demings: thank you, director haines, you talked about promotions cited as one of the top reasons for women and
other minorities leaving the i.c. community. if he police department we used to say that police departments should reflect the diversity of the communities in which we serve. and that diversity should be reflected at all rank levels. which means the decisionmakers should be a diverse community as well. could you talk just a minute about, why did you decide to create a new senior i.c. officer role for d.e.i. and accessibility? and what was missing on the prior structure in your view? director haines: absolutely, congresswoman. thanks for staying through the entire hearing. you work on these issues. i'll answer that question and would love to add if it's all right to what director burns said about the on-boarding process. in answer to your question i set up the separate office for the following reasons. one is i wanted to have an
absolute focus, frankly, on diversity equity inclusion. somebody who is 24/7 so to speak focused on that issue. that's number one. number two, i find both the e.e.o., equal employment opportunity office director, and the person focused on diversity will report to me. neither one of them are in a sense getting down further into the board chart. both of them have to work through partnerships with different parts of the i.c. for different purposes. i actually think it's critical for the person who is focused on diversity and equity and inclusion to have an opportunity to develop those partnerships based on essentially the diversity, equity and influence issues. exwall employment opportunity office is one intended to be in a sense an independent voice in the process. they are taking complaints from folks on compliance issues and so on. i think that is really something that i want to preserve the
independence surrounding. those are some of my reasons. i think there are lots of people that can look at these in different ways. i don't think it's an easy choice in some respects. i do believe it's the best way to promote diversity and inclusion. we have a separate person working on accessibility. i do think we have to focus on that. on the on-boarding piece. it is an icy issue. overall the average amount of time it takes from application to on-boarding we provided in the report to you in congress is 419 days across the i.c. 189 days of that was the security clearance process. there is a lot of room for improvement as director burns indicated. there is a lot of technological pieces. there is also variety of administrative details that we have been working through to see how we can improve the fact that you fill out a form on the low side, it goes up to the high side, it gets dealt with there. if there is a mistake it has to come back to the low side. goes back. it's astonishing how much time
these take. among the things we have been working on is trying to shorten the process without cutting corners on security clearances. for example now in the third quarter of f.y.2021 the amount -- average amount of time it takes to get an initial top secret clearance is down to 143 days. we are working in the right direction. we still have a loft work to do across the board. we are -- a lot of work to do across the board. we are inspired by director burns' idea of going to 180 days. mrs. demings: time goes quickly when we stay on topic. thank you so very much. thank you for the work you are doing. take care. chair schiff: mr. lahood. mr. la lahood had ad: i want to thank all of you for being here all morning and commitment and dedication to the intelligent communities community and certificate vissments i want to associate myself with the comments of mr. nunes as related to michael ellis and the inquiry and questions he raised. it warrants answers and i hope that can be accomplished.
i want to follow up on mr. stewart's questions as it related to the federal vaccine mandate. maybe director burns, i'll start with you. is the agency prepared to terminate hundreds if not thousands of c.i.a. employees, case officers, and intelligence professionals if the vaccine is not abided by? director burns: congressman, i guess several things. first, we are foregnat to have about a 97% vaccination rate for our career officers. it's a very high proportion of officers who have been vaccinated. second, we follow the law. we are operating with a federal mandate here which makes it time and condition of employment. not just at c.i.a. but across the federal government, to be vaccinated. there are as director haines mentioned before, as you know very well, both medical and religious waiver possibilities.
we have a number, think it's a little under 250 pending religious waiver applications. and a number of medical waiver applications as well. which we take very, very keer cowsly -- seriously. mr. lahood: the mandate as i understand it affects contractors, and subcontractors ena. people you work with throughout the i.c. community, correct? director burns: yes, sir. mr. lahood: i know you mentioned 97%. if there are hundreds that you would have to terminate, you are going to follow the law and terminate them at the appropriate time, correct? director burns: we'll follow the process that's been laid out under the law. but potentially it could come to that, yes, sir. mr. lahood: is it fair to say that termination of those hundreds of people or whatever the number is would have irreparable harm or would have a devastating effect on the agency and your mission is that fair to say? director burns: i think we are
going to be able to continue to fulfill our mission just as the american people expect. with a very high vaccination rate. we take very seriously those office officers who apply for those kind of waivers. i'm confident we'll be able to continue to fulfill our mission very effectively. mr. lahood: walk me through the process. as i understand it november 22 is the date that the vaccine -- that they have to have the information. there is a suspension period. and termination begins. how does it work with the agency when you have assets and professionals all around the globe when they don't do that, do you bring them back? how does that termination process work? director burns: i would be glad to describe the process in more detail. but there is a process that's laid out across the federal government that we'll follow. as i said given the very high vaccination rate across the agency, i don't anticipate that there is going to be a lot of these cases that we have to sort
through. we'll take very seriously and we'll give every officer who is involved in that process every opportunity to pursue alternatives. mr. lahood: i do think there arl issues here and the constitutional issues on the mandate, obviously this was not a law that was passed. this was an executive order. there are multiple cases pending in the circuit courts right now i believe will be consolidated, go to the supreme court. would it make sense to ask for a delay until the u.s. supreme court decides on this? clearly it will end up there. the last executive order the biden administration did on the mandate as it related to housing and evictions wound up there. would it make sense to ask for a delay so you don't have to go through this process of -- throughout the i.c. of terminating employees? director burns: the only thing i could comment on, congressman, from the perspective of c.i.a. is to simply say we'll follow the law and processes laid out
in the federal government. mr. lahood: if you asked the white house to ask for a delay until the supreme court makes a decision on the definitive legal issues here? director burns: no, sir. my role, as i said, is the role of -- as well as my colleagues here on the panel is to follow the law and the procedures that are laid out. that's what we are doing. mr. lahood: it's not in your interest to terminate long-term employees of your agency. director burns: no. it's in our interest to try to retain every employee, every career officer that we can. but we have an obligation to follow the law. we have an obligation to protect the safety and health of our employees as well. mr. lahood: i understand that. i guess what i'm saying is. it would seem to me -- nofn you want to go through this process of terminating employers, contractors, subcontractors, that will come here quickly in the next month. seems to me there is a way out of this. this will end up in the supreme court. asking for a delay working with the white house to have that
done so we don't have to deal with this issue. we are not talking about -- i think the i.c. is different. than employees at the department of agriculture. this is a national security issue. this is an issue that affects all of you and us globally. i think thinking about a delay or an exemption for the i.c. until the u.s. supreme court decides on this makes sense. i yield back. chair schiff: that concludes our questions for today. i do want to say because so much time was devoted to mr. ellis at a hearing on diversity, equity inclusion which really has nothing to do with the subject matter of this hearing, do i not associate ate myself with the remarks of the ranking member. i think he was a terrible choice. a political and partisan choice for a serious position of general counsel at n.s.a. i think the security issues,
class fight information issues are serious. classified information issues are serious. i do not associate myself with any of the comments made about mr. ellis by members of the minority. i want to thank you for your participation today and the effort you are taking to make the i.c. a more diverse workplace. i share the conclusions i think you all do that this will improve the quality and capabilities of the i.c. that's vital to the mission of the i.c. we look forward to following up with you on greater detail on the information that we have sought. that cannot be discussed in open session. but once again i appreciate all of your being here today. i think it's a testament to the priority that you place on these issues within the i.c. as my colleague said, this is the first time we have had a hearing like this with all the agency heads represented here
today for many years. thank you for the priority you are putting on this personally. we'll be following up with you. without objection, members are hereby grant up to three legislative days to submit written questions to be answered by any of our witnesses and writing those questions and answers will be made part of the formal hearing record. with that, the committee stands adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy visit ncicap.org]
>> download c-span's new mobile app and state up-to-date with live video coverage of the day's biggest political events from live streams of the house and senate floor and key congressional hearings. to white house event and supreme court oral arguments. even our liven interactive morning program, "washington journal," where we hear your
voices every day. c-span now has you covered. download the app for free today. >> thursday morning the c.e.o.'s of exxon, british petroleum, shell, and chevron testify on climate change before the house oversight and reform committee. watch live beginning at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. online at c-span.org. or watch full coverage on c-span now. a new video app. >> monday the u.s. supreme court will hear oral argument in two cases concerning the texas abortion law. s.b.8 which bans nearly all abortions after the sixth week of preg nancy at 10a.m. eastern, the justices hear whole womans health versus jackson, which challenges part of the law that gives the public power to enforce it via civil suits without federal court review. and at 11a.m., united states vs. texas looks at weather the justice