today's hearing will be conducted on an unclassified basis. all participants are reminded to refrain from discussing classified or other information protected from disclosure. i'm pleased to welcome you to today's hearing about diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility in the 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. i'm very pleased to see that commitment has been fulfilled. the presence of five senior leaders of the intelligence community at this hearing is an encouraging testament to your commitment to elevate diversity initiatives and driver real change. it's not enough to pay lip to the goal. we must put forward a concrete strategy to build a diverse ic and hold ourselves accountable to the goals we set. i'm pleased the administration has prioritized these issues. 15 days after taking office, president biden issues a memorandum that acknowledged shortcomings and inclusion. putsimply our diversity is our strength. for too long the ic work force has in the hospital reflected the talents found across the country. we risk undermining the capacity of the ic to keep pace with the evolving national security challenges the united states will face in coming years. whether it's understanding the nuances and language from the signals intercept, enhaning finished analysis or preparing an officer for operational deployment in a foreign country, it's vital we bolster the ranks with personnel who can act with agility and creativity in the face of rapidly shifting threat. yet it's clear we have plenty of work left to do. i remain concerned about inadequate process in recruiting and retaining individuals of diverse backgrounds in the core ic collection and analysis missions. for instance, i can't help but notice the large majority of ic briefers, uniformly excellent to appear before the committee are often white and male. we need to recruit officers with diverse backgrounds a shoend them there's a path to advance their careers. when we're able to successfully do tharks we'll inspire future recruits and hires to do the same. i look forward to hearing your updates. i look forward to your testimony ts. i will yield to the ranking member for any opening statement he might like to make. >> the intelligence community focuses on the commission of cyber intelligence, counter terrorism, counter intelligence and on the threats posed by state and non-state actors challenging u.s. national security and interests worldwide, unquote. that's a concise, accurate description of the intelligence community's mission. the ic is a sprawling group of agencies com compromising tens of thousands of people that will power within our government. they operate without transparency that's required of most government agencies. naturally, this concentration of power, spying capabilities and lack of transparency create many opportunities for abuse and abuses do high pressure which is why this committee exists. we were created as an additional level of oversight and response to misdeeds detailed by the church and pike committees in the 1970s. why do we tolerate such an agreement in a democratic republic? i believe the american people understand the risks. they believe the risks are out weighed by the benefits the intelligence community provides. mainly about our foreign enemies 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 and conduct actions that deter our enemies. when that cannot be done to help us win wars and other direct conflicts with these enemies. the ic, 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 dogmas have nothing to do with winning wars. these issue the proliferation of seminars given to military service members focusing on the dangers of white supremacy and racism. tucker carlson being caught up in nsa surveillance, general milley defending instruction on critical race theory and white rage at west point. the nsa improper suspension of michael ellis for political reasons. the fbi provision of false information to a fisa court to spy on political enemies and the list goes on and on. meanwhile, the international threat matrix does not take time out as our national security agencies being enthralled by critical race theory and pronoun etiquette. we're facing an array of precedented challenges, including but not limited to, china ease china's increasing aggressiveness toward taiwan, currency manipulation, corporate coercion and cyber crimes. china's testing of hyper sonic missile that took the world by surprise. continuing fall out from our withdrawal from afghanistan including the empowerment of the taliban and long time ties to al qaeda. the decline in u.s. capability, loss of streams and ally who is were left behind. the spread of ransomware attacks on u.s. targets. a threat of unknown threats entering america through our southern border and refugees from afghanistan. continuing russian aggression towards its neighbors. i could go on with that list but those were at the top of the list. unfortunately, we can't counter hypersonic missile long. i'd argue that woke obsessions are the proper jurisdiction of fault loungemarxist, not our national security agencies. it's eroded trust in institutions that have long received bipartisan support. this is predictable 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 color blind maritocrisies where the most capable people move up be ranks. i urge all the directors to stay out of politics. as we learn 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 intersectionalty. they closely watch us every day to find weakness that would enable attacks on our citizens and our homeland. our defense against them rest on all of you that are here today. i hope your priorities will match the urgency of this fraught moment in our nation's history. i look forward to your testimony. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. with that, let me now recognize our distinguished panel for their opening statements. we ask that you try to keep your remarks to around 20 minutes or so. a warm welcome to you all. director haines, you are now recognized. >> thank you. it's an honor to be here with my colleagues to discuss the work heard of us. while we have exceptional leaders within the ic who are committed to promoting deia, many of whom who have worked hard to achieve the progress we have worked for on these issues we know we have great deal of work ahead of us. these leaders know it's not only essential to our mission and values but to who we are as 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 ic work force made up of people who think differently, see problems differently and overcome challenges differently is a prerequisite to our success. it makes our nation safer and more secure against the array of adversaies and foreign threats that we face. the intelligence community is not where it needs to be. minorities, women and persons with disabilities are better represented at the lower ranks than the senior executive levels. suggesting that better success at recruiting than retaining and promoting. yet even so when you look at the recruiting, we consistently see a gap between recruiting and hiring minorities. while we have collected and analyzed far more demographic data than i have time to present, let me provide a few points that may be helpful. in fiscal year, 2020, the percentage of minorities stood at 27%. an increase from 26.5% in fiscal year 2019. continuing a positive trend since 2016. as you examine the senior levels of service, the data shows the number of minorities in leadership get progressively lower. across the ic, the percentage of minorities at the senior executive level stands at 15.4%. at odni, we lag behind. minorities compromise 20.5% of the work force. 6.5% below the work force. 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 for the past five years. still higher than the ic average, that percentage lags behind women in the civilian labor force at 47%. while we have seen some positive trends, we need to improve. here is some of what we're doing to change the situation. i look forward to getting 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 icdoe into two offices. it's the office of equal employment opportunity and diversity, equity and inclusion so would have an office fully dedicated to equity and inclusion. two of our highers organizational priorities are recruitment and that includes under represented communities and retention of people who are under represented in our work force. both doctor dixon, my principal deputy and i have worked to recruit at colleges and high schools where we can reach the communities and expand our application pool. i visited our partner school, florida international university which is compromised of hispanic students. we know that our individual efforts will not be enough. we need institutional growth to achieve our goals. we have taken the following measures. across the ic we have empowered advisory bodies such as the employment opportunity and diversity council and the ic chief human capital to focus on these issues. ic elements are collaborating in joint out reach and recruiting in under represented communities as you'll hear from my colleagues. the ic centers for academic excellence programs is increased. we have also formed new partnerships across industry and government with organizations like the american indian science and engineering society, a national non-profit focused on stem involvement for indigenous people of north america and pacific islands. finally for initiatives such as adopt a high school program, we're not just focusing academic outreach on colleges an universities. we are inspiring under represented communities at the k through 12 levels as well. there's a lot more we can do but we need your help with changing programs. in a community that prioritizes research by mission, it can hinder recruiting. this is an area where we could use help from congress. we appreciate the committee's inclusion of the administration's proposal to provide new authorities in this area. our other organizational priorities i mentioned is to retain our employees after hiring them. we have learned through poll surveys, exit interviews and retention interviews about why people stay and leave. the most common reason people leave is lack of promotion. other causes include lack of fairness and equity in the workplace, insufficient mentoring and guidance and lack of organization. we are addressing these issues with employee lead organizations. taking measures to promote fairness and equity and deliver anti-harassment training. they include the latino intelligence network, the women intelligence network, asian-american and pacific islander, african-american infinity network and deaf and hard of hearing affinity network. networks like these are not a solution but they can help our retention by leading community wide professional development opportunities and work life balancing programs. we are working to remove the structural and culture barriers that the ic has built up over generations. this community was known as one that did not value deia. it was only a single generation ago that there was an open stated policy of not hiring anybody who was lgbtq plus. plus forcing many of our colleagues to hide who they were if they wanted to serve the country. we have corrected our outdated policy and made stre stride under republican and democratic administrations. the policy that barred service for members of the lgbtq plus community was abolished. glass ceilings were smashed, doors open and ladders climbed. the fact i'm here before you today is another example of the work you have done to promote diversity in the government. our progress is real and encouraging but our journey is far from over. 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 diversity, inclusion and accessibility. to recognize our imperfections and decide we can do better. to see we have power to make ourselves better. the work toward a brighter vision of what we might be, what could be and what will be. we're resolute in this purpose and i know we will be successful. thank you. >> chairman schiff, it's a privilege to testify on the current state of diversity and on the status of diversity across intelligence enterprise. i'm pleased to join my colleagues to testify in front of you today. on behalf of secretary awe tin, i want to convey the importance of work force diverse toy the department of defense. diversity is a mission imperative. it's through our people we achieve the greatest accomplishments, over come the greatest challenges and ensure we maintain a competitive advantage. our personnel must be able to serve anywhere in the world, understand the culture, speak the language and plends in to the environment. we must be able to understand our partners and allies concerns amends challenges so we can corroborate with them and we must be capable of anticipating actions. we need all hands and all perspectives on deck to protect our national security interest. we also need fact based metrics to inform our decisions. work force diversity goes beyond a ratio of men to women or idealized percentage of ethnic minorities. it should reflect the diversity of the people who we serve and represent. one in five americans will be beyond retirement age and our population growth will be tied to sper national migration. people who identify as two or more races will be the fastest growing racial or ethnic group. this trend suggests minority population will be the majority in our nation within the next 30 years. they be be the majority of growth in our nation's working, photoing and consumer population. a diverse work force provides us with an asymmetric advantage that other nations do not have. we must find means to appeal to them, set conditions where they want to remain within our government. the data scientist, arts official intelligence machine learning analysts, math mathematicians and linguists must be creative 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 action, accountability and our institutions must be institutionalized. i'd like to highlight those that we believe will foster greater diversity across enterprise. the primary purpose is to address the most dauntsing work force challenges. focusing on talent manage. it places heavy emphasis will allow us to apply fact based metrics and to improve our decisions in this area. although secretary of defense team has only been together a brief period, we are working to best identify those practices that we can incorporate into our recruiting and succession planning efforts. we continue to recruit highly talented service members and persons with disabilities. chaurm stokes was the former chairman of this distinguished committee. we have a neural diverse federal work pilot program to expand and diversify our tools. they focus on recruitment of individuals who think, communicate and behave differently and due to diagnosis of autism or adhd, because we recognize they make contributions to our society. today i want to ensure this commitment has been embraced not only by the members but by leadership across the department of defense. i wish to thank the committee who are holding this hearing and giving us an opportunity to discuss this important topic. >> strengthening diversity and inclusion is among my highest priority as director. it's not only the smart thing to do, it's the right thing to do for an agency that represents and defends our society. we can't be effective and we're not being true to our nation's ideals if every one looks like me, talks like me and thinks like me. today at cia, 45% of our work force are female and 26% are minority. last year's new hire were among our most diverse with 46% female and 27% minority. our challenge is not only to strengthen those numbers in recruitment but to reenforce 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 was the first approved as director was 43% female and 25% minority. a majority of the senior leadership appointments i made are female and nearly a third are minority. we still have a lopg way to go. 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 have engaged with 34 msis. we have also selected senior officers to serve as champions for ten of those schools. we plan to provide annual tuition assistance of up to 37,000 there are from select students from minority serving student who is apply to the da. the agency must reform our on boarding process and remove barriers to recruiting a diverse work force. for example, our talent center aims over the next two years to reduce the current median time from 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. this year's cia 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 have taken steps to ensure all qualified individuals can apply to cia by addressing needs for reasonable accommodations. we created the position of ability talent broker to help people with disabildisabilities navigate the process. recruiting is essential but it's only a starting point. there has to be a clear path upward. this is why our second overall objective is to increase diversity in senior roles. we have assembled a team to strengthen our personnel evaluation systems over the next year. we're also launching a new human resources dashboard that draws on work force and hiring data to help us pinpoint specific diversity and inclusion challenges throughout the pipeline from junior gs levels through more senior levels. in will allow us to make better data driven decisions on where to target our efforts and resources and help keep us accountable. we have added expectations on diversity, equity and inclusion and accessibility to the performance evaluations of all of our officers. we created similar criteria for examining bonuses. on my first day on the job laes march, i met with asian american officers after the terrible murders in atlanta to emphasize our shared concerns. i stressed repeatedly that our focus on the challenge posed by the people's republic of china is about the chinese leadership, not the chinese people and certainly not people of chinese descent or asian americans. i look forward to working with all of you to shape the cia which embodies the best of america and can best defend our interest in values in a very complicated world. thaupg very much. >> chairman schiff, ranking member nunez, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss a very important topic. as the director of the national security agency, i recognize the critical importance we rely onto help ensure our nation every day reflects the diversity of the country now and into our future. equally important is providing a fair, rewarding and inclusive work environment for on board talent. one of the strengths of nsa diversity of equality and inclusion program is clear and visible engagement of senior leaders across the enterprise in this work. another is our 11 employee research groups of more than 42 chapter and 6500 members. together, they are helping drive my two strategic dei initiatives. the big six, diversity inclusion, equality inclusion focus areas and equity through action. these two efforts which build on the work started in 2015, combined focus on accountability, hiring, on boarding and mentoring, advocacy, career development and a more diverse work force that's able to reach their full potential at nsa. our programs are working. we have seen slow but steady increases in representation, minorities, women and people with disabilities in higher grade level. we're on track for reaching or minority hiring goals. civilian population is 26.1% racial ethnic minority. 41.3% women. 12.4% persons with disabilities and 2.7% persons with targeted disabilities. we're committed to leaning into our areas of improvement. this past july, the careers and disabled magazine named nsa public sector employer of the year for our commitment to recruiting, hiring and promoting people with disabilities. earlier this secretary of defense named nsa the best intelligence community for individuals with disabilities to include an nsa employee was awarded for outstanding contributions to it mission and core values. those successes are markers for our agency as we move forward in the right direction. we still have room to grow. i have established three outcomes to drive us forward. i'm confident they will help us succeed. first, increase representation of under represented populations at all grades of senior ranks. secondly, ensuring our personal practices and programs yield fair out comes for all groups and ownership of diversity, equality and inclusion outcomes to create a place where they feel included and valued. chairman and ranking member, i will end my comments here to allow sufficient times for questions. thank you. >> chairman schiff, ranking member nunez, distinguishing members of the committee, it's a pleasure to testify today. this is an issue of great importance to me as a director of dia. dia fills the unique role. officers fulfill the critical mission of providing strategic operational and tactical to our war fighters, defense planners, policy makers and the acquisition community. the foundational intelligence that our colleagues across the defense intelligence enterprise, allies and foreign partners provide help to translate national policy into execuable military action and inform the joint force. diversity and inclusion are not only important to me personally but critical to our work force and key enabler for mission success. it's part of my strategy to create an agile and active work force that's postured for the global operating environment. it's imperative our work force reflect the mission we seek to protect and bring thought, experience and background. a more diverse, inclusive work force starts with the recruitment. we have developed a more intentional approach to recruitment and build relationships with 45 historically black colleges and universities, 35 womens colleges, minority professional organizations and schools with disabilities. people of color in the di work force has increased 14% and representation of persons with disabilities has increased by 2%. dia has been working to become a more ive agency. we making progress but we know recruitment efforts are not sufficient to sustain a diverse work force and we have more to do. despite strong hiring numbers, women and people of color are concentrated in non-leadership roles. we are pry yur -- prioritizing. to help us understand our diversity profile and what's holding us back, dia stood up a working data group in 201. we have inventory and audited various data source, studied trends and begun conducting root cause analysis. held focus groups to interpret the findings. it's my intent that data drif p approach will be i corporated into our long term implementation plan. our initiatives have shown dividends and we will prioritize them. the success of our fighters in field and policy makers here at home rest on superior intelligence which depends on our most important asset, our people. reducing bias, eliminating glass ceilings and walls and attracting and retaining the most qualified intelligence officers are our priorities. thank you for your continued confidence and support. >> not only do there seem to be barriers, there also appears to be a growing glass wall. 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? 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 admission support fields, what would those numbers look like? >> thank you. yes there is obviously a split that we have seen in administrative and support roles where there's a concentration of essentially both women and minorities in those areas. i couldn't give you for odni, but we should do that what the split would be. what the difference would be between them in the senior ranks. others may have information about their particular agencies and departments. one of the challenges here is you've identified is the fact we need to promote throughout the community in all different fields, the diversity we expect to see and something 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. when i go to florida international university, for example, which happens to be an ic center of academic excellence, one of the things they do is they take competed grant and develop curricula that promotes ic skills, tries to build out a whole series of workshops and other things that are intended to really develop not just kind of student interest in these areas but the skills that would make them, you know, great employees within the intelligence community and promoting that in these spaces helps to allow students to see these are things that i can do as i'm coming into the intelligence community that i may not have thought of before and i may not have been encouraged to do. that's way to ensure we're bringing them into mission in every possible way. others may have comments on this issue. >> director burns, i know this is an ic wide problem. like the time it takes to get someone cleared to join the ic. have you found whether that has a disproportionate impact on diversity? that is that the length of time whether it's six month, a year, 18 months to join the ic has the impact of excludeing many people of color? >> thanks for the question mr. chairman. it's a problem across the agency. as i mentioned in my opening remarks that on boarding process that can take as long as 600 days puts us at considerable advantage and recruiting the best talent across american society as a general rule. it's a particular disadvantage for minority applicants as well. many of whom don't have the means to wait through a lengthy on boarding process as well. for both of those reasons, i feel a real sense of urgency about reforming that process and reducing it over the next couple of years to a median of no more than 180 days. i think that's essential for the agency as a whole and minority recruitment and retention. >> director, do you believe there's a lingering barrier to the initiatives at the agency compared to other elements of the ic? >> i think it's a challenge the agency has wrestled with for some years. i think we're very focused on the importance of increasing, not just recruiting but retention and demonstrating a professional pathway for deserving officers, whatever their background to the senior ranks. i think those are the key ingredients in a formula to overcome that. i think we have also put a great deal of effort into emphasizing the importance of creating a culture of respect and tolerance as well as i mention in my opening remarks. we recognize it as a challenge but like my colleagues across the ic, we're making a serious effort. i intend to continue that. >> do any of the, i don't know how much of this you can discuss here, but i know the agencies have been implementing your direction rising out of the stra -- strategic views does that impact what we're discussing and are you able to share any of that? >> it's the on boarding process that i mentioned before. i think that's critical. diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility is another important priority. we have launched a series of efforts, some of which i mentioned in my opening statement aimed at recruitment as well as strengthening retention and demonstrating a pathway to the senior most ranks of the agency. in the appointments that i mentioned to our senior leadership team and the seven months i've been director, i'm proud of the fact over half of those are female and nearly a third are minorities as well. that's a significant step in the right direction. >> before i hand it off to the ranking member, i would just request 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. >> i thank the gentleman. i want to turn to you to speak about political discrimination in the work force. first of all, i'd like to ask you some questions about naval officer lieutenant commander michael ellis whom you placed on administraive leave on president biden's inauguration day who withdraw. a report was released last week. the ig report details you went to great lengths to oppose the hiring of ellis. some of your concerns about ellis, quote, had no basis in fact, unquote and other concerns quote appear to be inappropriate ly injecting partisan politics. unquote. will you make these e-mails public? >> certainly, ranking member. >> thank you. >> we know democrats in congress were pressuring you to oppose ellis' hiring and they got the dod inspector general to open the investigation into it. did anyone from the biden administration pressure you to stop ellis' hiring? >> no onepressured me. >> did you speak to susan rice? >> i did not. >> did you speak to jake sullivan? >> i did not. >> in hopes of delaying ellis hiring, you asked theist personnel of management to review the matter but they told you they don't do that. the previous nsa general council did not undergo an opm review. you demanded a different process for ellis but in the end you didn't have the authority on ellis hiring. mr. nay had that authority, is that correct? >> he has the authority to hire the nsaogc. that's correct. >> nevertheless, the ig report found that mr. ney asked to direct you to appoint ellis. after receiving that direction, you finally appointed him as general council. just five days later, you placed the lieutenant commander ellis on administraive leave. 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 ig's finding? >> ranking member, i accept the ig's finding. i think it's important to talk about what the findings stated which is the fact that mr. ellis had two significant security allegations -- >> i'm glad you're getting there. we'll get to that. we're coming to that. i'll give you an opportunity to discuss that. the ig found there was no improper political influence by president trump. did you believe there was political influence? >> i did not. what my concern was at the time wads 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. later on we found out the dod cleared up there was not a need for a merit based review. >> you don't dispute the ig's finding on this question? >> i do not. >> these allegations of among other things, that you, opposed lieutenant commander ellis' hiring. these anonymous sources had insight to your thought processes. what happened is someone close to you planted a fake news story claiming the white house improperly pressured the nsa to hire ellis. then democrats in congress cited the story to gin up an ig investigation and then you cited the investigation to sabotage lieutenant ellis' hiring. it's a cute trick. you were improperly trying to delay his hiring by citing an ig investigation. then two days after acting secretary of defense directs you to hire ellis in a miraculous coincidence your deputy mr. barnes informs you of two allegations that ellis had mishandled classified information. the first incident involved a state department official who made the allegation to mr. barnes -- who made the allegation to mr. barnes about that supposed incident. who? >> i don't know, ranking member. i'm not aware of who made that allegation. >> okay. then there was a second one. who made the allegation on the second supposed incident? >> again, ranking member, i don't know who made the allegation. again, the allegation came from my deputy director indicating that there had been reports that there was mishandling of documents to include the copying of nsa sensitive materials and the distribution of those materials. >> mr. barnes would know who these people are? >> correct. >> could you have mr. barnes provide us the names of those people who made these serious allegations? >> we'll certainly look into that, ranking member. >> i'll take that as a yes or no? >> again, i would like to be able to talk with my counsel to make sure that is something we can do given the investigation that is taking place. >> so you're forced to hire ellis. your attempts to stop him failed. it's brought to your attention that allegations were made against mr. ellis, both who work for you. on january 19th ellis shows up for work and receives a security clearance. the next day shortly after president biden is sworn in, you place ellis on administrative leave. on january 19th you're aware of these supposed security incidents and you approve lieutenant commander ellis' clearance. then just after the biden team is installed you decide that ellis is no longer fit to serve. the ig report says you dropped the investigation of ellis after he withdrew as nsa 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 if there's any evidence to support that. to sum up you found a fake news story planted by someone close to you to get rid of ellis. you ruined the career of a lieutenant commander for political reasons. you accuse him of mishandling classified information. hopefully you can get those names to the committee. i want to talk about mishandling of classified information. i want to just the topic. i asked you if you ever recalled an intelligence report by a senior government -- if you recalled a senior intelligence report. i'll give you an opportunity to clarify your answer from the last hearing. have you as director of nsa recalled a report on a basis that was embarrassing to a senior military leader or government official? >> i have not. >> are there any repeat offenders which have had to provide signals -- are there any repeat offenses where signals intelligence is embarrassing to a senior military leader, have you done this since the last hearing? >> ranking member, i'm not sure i understand the context of your question. >> well, let me try to clarify it for you. you're saying you never recalled any intelligence reports that could be embarrassing to senior leaders within the military or the ic or any other government agency? >> i directed the recall of reports based on several reasons. one of them is the distribution of these reports, if they're incorrect. secondly if the trade craft is bad and it's brought to my attention that it should not be within our analytic reports. that's something i -- >> did any senior military leaders ask you to recall a report? >> never. >> you just did it on your own? >> i did it as the director of the nsa as these matters come up and are brought to my attention. it's not the only report i directed a recall on. >> final question here. i'll yield back my time. obviously you're familiar with the tucker carlson situation. it's been in the news. the nsa inspector general is investigating that the nsa swept up tucker carlson communications. >> certainly. we provided the committee the information we knew about this and shared the relevant details. >> with that i yield back, mr. chairman. >> director nakasone, i want to make sure you had a chance to answer the question you sought time for. anything further? >> nothing further. >> mr. himes? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the witnesses. i'll bring the conversation back to the reason we're here. why are we here? is this some scratching of a faculty lounge itch as the ranking member suggests? is this some effusion of white liberal guilt? it is not. it is not. we're here because our responsibility, our duty is to field the most competent capable and lethal national security team we can. generation ago the cia was mocked for being pale, male, yale. maybe you believe that nic comprised of white males is the result of a system. maybe you believe that white males have some racial or ethnic or genetic advantage over others. if you do, there's a word for that. i don't believe we believe that. i believe that if we have an insufficiently diverse ic we're failing to tap the elect of women, african-americans and asian americans. director haines, i'm looking at stats here. it's easier to recruit a diverse talent pool than to promote them to most senior levels. i won't go into the numbers. going from gs-9 to gs-15, you see a drop off of minority staff. two questions. i know it's complicated. do your best in three minutes. do we have good data? i read in the report that exit interviews are optional. that would suggest maybe we don't have good data. secondly, inasmuch as we have good data, can you spend a minute or two on elaborating on why you think we lose diversity as people climb the ranks? >> absolutely. thank you very much, representative himes. the question on whether or not we have good data, i will tell you we need more data. some of the data we have is good data, but we do not enough exit interviews exhaustively applied across the community. we're working to do that from the ic perspective. looking to ensure we have the resources allocated to that and the systems in place. that's something that needs done. additionally odni had not done an barrier analysis. doing surveys, doing exit interviews and other issues. we're in the process of getting a barrier report done. there's a lot of room for improvement. in the context of the work that has been done, we've found out from those surveys and exit interviews is that the primary reason that people give is lack of promotion opportunity as i mentioned. this is a key question for us and it certainly comes back to one of the original points you're making. that's something we're looking at. i would say too, as we look at on the recruitment side we have attracted more minorities for example to apply, but we're not seeing them get hired as i pointed out in the same percentages that they're applying. you see a roughly 10% gap there that's pretty significant and we're looking at this across a range of issues. the question is why is that happening. part of the question we're trying to answer is through data, basically talking to those candidates about their process. what is happening during that process? trying to ensure that folks who are hiring managers are undergoing unconscious bias training, other things that might be helpful. doing a variety of things to ensure we're going to pull the data so we can better understand it and do what we can to improve that situation. >> i'm sorry. let me interrupt. i don't want to end this conversation without having a sense with what you think is driving the drop-off. are we talking about mentorship, culture, prejudice? i would love to come away from this conversation with a sense of your diagnosis. >> lack of promotion opportunities. lack of fairness in the workplace. insufficient mentoring and guidance. my last point was only going to be that we don't have the data that would help us see whether or not that gap between applicants and hiring is happening through the promotion boards. that's another place we need to dig in and seeing the same percentage drop as we're going through the system. >> thank you, mr. chairman. yield back. >> mr. turner? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for being here. director haines, i want to thank you to your references to historically black universities. i'm vice chair of the black college and university caucus. i serve with congressman anthony brown on the inclusion caucus. we passed a number of bills relating to coordination between the department of defense and historically black colleges in assistance and acquiring clearance while still in school to give people a leg up to get positions. i have four pages of questions i'm going to ask about the implementation of those laws and the request to the rest of the ic as to how they can look administratively to implement these. i'll submit that for the record. i want to show my support for the ranking member's questions concerning michael ellis. i received the conclusion that none of the witnesses in the hiring process indicated there was any pressure from the white house or any political pressure whatsoever. very concerned about political influence. then i want to note i have before when we raised this issue that nancy pelosi personally sent a letter requesting he not be installed. while the white house was found to have no interference, we all have the letter from the speaker herself indicating her opposition. i want to note a letter october 21st, led by the ranking member concerning the impacts of vaccine mandates upon our staffing. chris stewart will be asking questions which i support on the impact on our workforce of diversity with vaccine mandates. then, i want to ask each of you a yes or no question. we're doing an investigation. we're very concerned about what's happened in afghanistan and specifically the issues of what occurred on august 29th where a drone strike killed innocent people. i had the opportunity to question secretary austin, general milley, deputy shermans. our concern is what the protocols were, the intelligence review and analysis. i have a fairly simple question. yes or no. i'm looking for individuals during the time period the target was identified until the shot was taken. i'll ask if you were directly involved. during that time period where the target is identified to the time that the shot was taken, were you directly involved in reviewing the intelligence or advising dod concerning shot doctrine protocols or in the chain of analysis of intelligence concerning the tragic august 29th? i'm looking for your direct involvement, not subordinates. reviewing intelligence, advising dod, providing oversight during that time period where the target was first identified until the shot was taken. were you directly involved? >> no. >> secretary? >> no. >> director? >> no. >> director? >> no. >> general? >> no. >> did you have direct subordinates under you who were involved during that time period? >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> congressman, i need to take that for the record to be fully sure. >> that's fine. one last question. we're very concerned about the protocols that occurred that day in terming to take the shot. we heard from the intelligence community. we heard from dod. were you or anyone directly under you involved in reviewing the protocols reviewed that day in determining the drone strike would be taken? >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no, congressman. >> thank you so much. i yield back. >> mr. carson? >> thank you, chairman. limited opportunities for promotion is cited in ic employee exit surveys as a top reason for ic employees resigning from their agencies. what are you doing to address the source of frustration among departing officers and especially for those with diverse backgrounds? what steps are your agencies taken to appeal to applicants with diverse natural origins, especially those who have cultural skills? are there barriers these groups face coming into the ic? are there disclosures? what areas for improvement have you identified to rural communities? would something like participation in a protest in college be an impediment as opposed to others who have participated in protests who have been accepted into the ic and become executives? would that be a hindrance to someone of color? >> sir, do you want me to start? >> let's rock and roll. >> sounds good. thank you very much. so first of all what steps are we taking with respect to the top concern that's been named as you identified which is about lack of opportunities for promotion. as i mentioned to representative himes, one of the issues we're looking at is getting further data first of all on whether or not there is the same gap that we see in hiring between applicants and those that are hired in minority spaces in the context of promotion boards and digging in to try to understand whether or not there is in fact challenges an barriers associated with minorities going through the promotion process that need to be addressed. that is one piece of what we're doing. additionally we're trying to work through the affinity networks that i noted in my opening statement to better have an opportunity -- first of all, i meet with them every month. going through different affinity networks to talk to them about what they're seeing and they can talk to me about what they're seeing as challenges. we support them doing a variety of events and out reach so as to be able to lift up some of the challenges so we can address those questions as they come about and support those communities as much as we can in the context of their work. we need more data. we need to better understand what is happening. we're trying to communicate with the workforce as much as possible to address issues. the next piece in terms of appealing to diverse communities and getting out to those different communities, we're doing a variety of things. you'll hear from all my colleagues different ways in which they're approaching this. one of the them is obviously including geographical diversion as you identified. our ic centers for academic excellence is a program that's been around from a couple years. i provides long term partnerships with u.s. colleges and universities through awarded grants. they're designed to increase awareness of the ic mission and culture and to do so in ethnically and geographically diverse communities. we're wanting to get out to area that is don't see us, don't necessarily have contact with folks in the ic. we're working through our recruitment process in order to try to make sure we have 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 they might have for example about the application process that would be concerning. i will tell you flat out participation in a peaceful protest is not an issue in relation to ic hiring. let me let other people have an opportunity to respond. >> the only thing i would add as a specific example of out reach, we did a program in june over a couple days at the agency in partnership with the national society of black engineers because not only do we have an intense interest in improving minority hiring, we have an interest in hiring people with s.t.e.m. skills. 150 students took part. that generated a couple dozen applications to the agencies as well. >> congressman, i would add in terms of identifying subjectivity in our hiring process, you participate in some of these boards as i have and you hear comments and questions and you hear things talked about that aren't objective. they don't get directly at the qualifications of the individual. more get at would somebody's chemistry fit. making sure we identify those types of things. agree with the barrier identification piece. we're working closely within the department of defense for readiness on how we have out reach to the hbcus, msis to ensure we have the right out reach there, we have the right social ways of engaging with those individuals. we have a concerted effort going on within the pentagon. >> lastly, wrapping up, how are you -- for example, pita is a designated as a hate group. the southern poverty law center i think their process is flawed. you have one or two people making a designation as to who is or not a hate group when they have an ax to grind. something with a religious affiliation may have a discrimination against blacks and jews. how do you make that determination? do you comb through someone's social media and they had a position a few years ago? >> i'll speak for the department of defense. we're spoking on behaviors than group representation. if someone is a member of a group, that may not necessarily indicate they are actually doing things that are detrimental to our mission. we're focusing on those behaviors we're concerned about and less than what somebody's past affiliation with a group might be. >> thank you. chairman, i yield back. >> i do want to start with the ranking member's concerns and questions concerning michael ellis. the intelligence community's need for diversity are very clear. as well, this work requires a common thread of selfless patriotic service with honesty and honor along with the willingness to uphold our constitution. nothing has been diverse as covid-19, killing humankind across the globe. honesty and transparency have been at a minimum. seemingly the factual scientific opinions have been ignored. director haines, i want to thank you for scheduling a meeting with me on this topic. i appreciate that. some call gain of function experiments the production of a kimera. combining components from two viruses into one for the sake of making it more infectious to the general public. the terms are interchangeable. using what i learned or not learned from the intelligence opportunities i have by the virtue of being on the select committee, as well as what i learned from my own research, i wonder if "vanity fair" or the eco health alliance and drastic have done a deeper dive than our own intelligence community. a data scientist from new zealand told vanity fear i can't be sure that covid-19 originated from a research related accident or a sample trip but i'm 100% sure there was a cover up. dr. fauci said the knowledge outweighs the risk. in 2019 doctors in china published their work to create a kimera using coronaviruses. dr. fauci's emails january 31, 2020 suggest coronavirus may have been genetically engineered and on february 1st dr. fauci emails his deputy with the headline important and sends the 2015 article about creating the coronavirus. peter dasick working with chinese doctors thanks dr. fauci for publicly saying there was no evidence this was engineered. he also got a letter published in "the lancet" stating that the covid virus did not come from the lab. it's reported that 26 of the 27 that signed the letter had connections to the wuhan lab. january of 2021 it was concluded there's a 99.8% probability that covid can from a lab from another doctor. we know china removed all access to their database containing the genetic research. china did not report what they knew or when they knew it including the virus spreads human to human. china levied sanctions on australia for calling for transparency. no covid-19 has been found in nature, not in wet markets or live stock as hundreds of animals have been tested except maybe the humanized mice used in research is he wuhan lab. peter dasick was the only american on the w.h.o. review team. considering this research at the wuhan lab, his interest in discovery or lack thereof may align with china's. there's much unknown. who should be the investigators and who should be investigated? peter dasick finds himself at the center of this debate. why was he the only american pointed to this mission? as "the washington post" editorial board asked about peter they asked why didn't he -- called for engineering and modification on spike proteins that would make them infect human cells in the way the pandemic strain did. what does he know about the databases of viruses that were took off line in 2019? does he know what research the wib may have done on its own? what was being done at wib in the months before the pandemic? mr. dansick must answer these questions before congress. it's entirely appropriate for congress to insist on accountability and transparency. he might help the world understand what happened in wuhan. these are good questions and comments from the "washington post." i suggest this committee should be holding hearings on the origin of covid-19 and do so in coordination with our intelligence community. my only question, can i get that commitment from our chairman and you director? mr. chairman? >> director, would you care to respond? >> representative, thank you so much. i have great respect honestly for both your knowledge on these issues and your passion on the question of trying to get to the origins of covid. as you know, we have done a lot of work on this question and have briefed committee members on our analysis. we're happy to provide additional briefings on that, you know, as the chairman and the committee sees fit. >> i look forward to our conversation that is scheduled. mr. chairman? >> i'm happy to consider your request. >> thank you. i yield back. >> ms. spear? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for your presentations this morning. let me start with you, general nakasone. that particular inspector general's report found you had done nothing wrong, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> is it also true that the general counsel for the nsa is the only general counsel of the ic that is not confirmed by the senate? >> i would have to check on that, congresswoman. i know our general counsel is not confirmed by the senate. >> my understanding is that it is not confirmed as the only ic general counsel. if you could get back to me -- >> will do. >> i'm curious as to what extent that is problematic as it relates to the ic community in general. director haines, my understanding is that the position of chief officer for ic diversity, equity and inclusion has not been filled. is that true? >> congresswoman, yes, the posting may have just closed or may be closing in the next week. >> it's not an issue of having difficulty filling it. >> no, ma'am. >> the timeframe has not been exhausted. okay. for each of you i would like for you to return to the committee information about the numbers dash the percentages of latinos within each of your services, both in the analyst area and in the administrative area. to me based on what i've seen historically it is the most underrepresented universe in the ic, yet it represents 18% of the population in this country. 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? >> that's correct, congresswoman. >> has anyone who has been evaluated under that new rubric been found to be inadequate in their efforts and not been promoted? >> there's at least one example that i know of in terms of a bonus where there was, you know, a reaction against performance that didn't live up to those standards in terms of not just promotion but also creating an inclusive atmosphere. i'll be glad to get back to you with that. >> i appreciate that. director haines, i think it's important to do across the ic. are you committed to doing that to make sure that in senior management we see the diversity we need and evaluate those 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? >> thank you, congresswoman. yes, our personnel evaluations include this as one of the factors and absolutely committed to it. an additional question is whether or not we should be asking people in interviews for example whether or not they have a plan for diversity inclusion. that's something we're looking at. >> i want to underscore the fact the importance of not just having that looked at, but there be repercussions if they're not successful in helping to elevate persons in that regard. >> yeah. >> let me also ask about s.t.e.m. talent. i'm concerned we're not attracting the s.t.e.m. talent into the ic we desperately need. i'm 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 ic? 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. stewart? >> thank you, chairman. thanks to all of you. i recognize your many years of service and commitment to serving and protecting our country. before i go into my topic i would like to identify with the ranking member's legitimate concerns regarding mr. ellis and the situation that has been described. on september 9th president biden ordered all federal department and agencies to -- i'll quote -- implement a program to require covid-19 vaccinations for all federal employees. the outcome being if they don't comply, removal from federal service. i want to be really clear. i'm vaccinated. i've always encouraged others to become vaccinated. 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, african american, she works for a relevant agency you all represent. she's already had covid. she has antiboies because of that. she's expecting her second child and has very difficult pregnancies. she doesn't want to take the vaccinate. her doctor encouraged her not to take the vaccine. yet she's facing termination. she asked me for help. i didn't know what to say to her. i have here in my hand multiple studies from the cdc and others that indicate 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 semantics is a good idea. we can discuss that. if we're going to fire critical employees including from the minority community, a community we're trying to recruit and 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 of the place? 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%. we hope it's not that high. that's about where we are, pretty close. what's the impact on our minority personnel who, as i indicated, they're vaccinated at a lower rate? how do we replace them? it takes 12 to 24 months to recruit and go through the security screenings. these are the questions i think we should answer and have a conversation about. with that in mind -- i guess i would ask all of you, director haines, what's the implications? 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? how do we address that? it's not a train wreck coming years from now. it's within a few weeks. >> thank you, congressman. i think to start with for the woman that you mentioned i would indicate that if she is concerned about a medical exemption she should apply for one. we have -- >> director, she has. she's been denied that up to this point. she didn't appear optimistic that it would be approved. >> we take our guidance in that context from the centers from disease control, opm and the folks who do the medical process for that. that is in my experience and certainly if there's anybody that needs help we can look into this if there's a medical concern. 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 those not vaccinated. we have -- >> director, i don't want to interrupt you. it is relatively small in the odni. it's not nearly so small in some of the other agencies. >> we'll let other people speak for themselves. it's something we're not anticipating it's going to be an issue for mission. in terms of the minority issue you identified there is vaccine hesitancy in minority populations than others. it's something we've been addressing. 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 has the best information that they can on these issues. we are pursuing that. >> my time is up. i want you to know i'm going to submit questions for the record for all of you. this is enormously important. we seem to be walking blindly towards it. we may fire a meaningful 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? again, it just doesn't seem like we've given it nearly the thought and consideration we should. i'll follow up with questions. i'll yield back. >> mr. quigley? >> thank you, mr. chairman. we're going to have to retitle what we call our hearings. next time we do this we need to title it diversity and oh, my god anything but diversity. today we have continued what we have heard much of our lives that somehow inclusivity and diversity works against merit and they have nothing to do with each other. it applies diversity is not equal to equality. inclusiveness enhances and is critical to capabilities. who am i to say these things? i'll quote someone else who has been in the worst of the fields. he wrote in 2018 i've served many years in war zones where incorporating the principle of inclusion was critical to our success. the u.s. is facing more serious 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, to understand these threats and to present policy makers with the best options of dealing with them. the most enlightened leaders embrace this approach and swivel their judgments based on the input they seek. our country's melting pot is an exceptional competitive advantage and force multiplier for our intelligence community. socially and ethically diverse groups enhance creativity, innovation and performance. a lesson the cia teaches about the power of inclusion, defenders of our core ideals of freedom, liberty and democracy. who wrote this in 2018? daniel hawthorne, a former chief of station with central intelligence agency with a combined 30 years of government service, including high level positions not only with the cia, but also 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, middle east and south asia. i hope we can talk about such issues as we go forward because if we can't appeal to your heart, the only choice is to appeal to your brain. upton sinclair when he wrote "the jungle" was appealing to our heart. when president roosevelt read it, he said he aimed at their heart. i'll hit lower. i don't know how else to do this but to remind us that if we can't appeal to your heart, our brain tells us to survive in a diverse world, most can't look like me. directors, is there anything you want to add to that? >> i was going to say i agree with dan hoffman and the quote 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 complicated environments. just as dan hoffman said our diversity is a huge asset, diversity of languages, the ability to do our work overseas. the same is true with analysts. their ability to understand what's going to be most important about pieces of intelligence to convey to policy makers. i always thought throughout my career at state and cia that diversity is a huge national security asset for the united states. i see it every day at cia. >> thank you. i just want to add my concurrence to that. when i first came in, we went through an exercise with the leaders of the intelligence community to identify our priorities. we talked about substance and we talked about the fact that china is a critical priority for the intelligence community. top of the list for which there was absolutely uniform support among every leader of the intelligence community and all the people on this panel were part of that was talented and diverse workforce. recruiting and retaining a talented workforce. it's fundamental to our success in the few cure that we actually bring that workforce forward. they're the ones that need to address the challenges we're facing. there's nobody that saw any tension between diverse and talent. it is absolutely fundamental and together. >> i would just say very quickly i had the honor of serving with dan hoffman on a number of occasions. within the last year, last six months, dan and i exchanged emails on a number of topics. he's a fine man. gone through a lot of challenges, but a great american. we should listen to the words he's saying. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> mr. crawford? >> the good news is everyone on this side of the aisle agrees with mr. hoffman. i thank the panel for being here. i would like to associate myself with the comments to the ranking member with regards to the comments of commander ellis. director haines, on october 4th i held a counter intelligence event in my direct. i want to thank you for your personal involvement. it was very well attended. the presenters mr. orlando from ncsc and the fbi were the primary presenters along with sisa. thank you for your direct involvement. switching gears now. i want to move to some questions. does anyone disagree the intelligence community view it is ongoing board crisis as a national security threat? do you dispute a wall or fence enhances security? is it true that each of your agencies are protected by walls or fences or infrastructure that you take measures to control physical access? that's true? does anyone disagree eliminating fences or walls would present physical and counter intelligence 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 there are security double standards in the biden administration and in the democrat majority. the president is protected by walls and a new fence around his beach house. the entire capitol complex was surrounded by fencing for months. despite the need for walls to protect themselves the president and congressional democrats are blocking the completion of the border wall. there are growing calls for deploying the national guard to assist with supply chain crisis. they're refusing to mobilize the national guard to the border. is it possible for a terrorist to cross the border? yes? is it possible for transnational criminal organizations to smuggle drugs and weapons across the border? is it possible for human smugglers to move caravans up to and across the border? yes. are these threats increasing, decreasing or staying the same? can we agree those threats are increasing? i don't hear any dispute on that. last year 1.7 million apprehensions across the border. there's out source reporting of 60,000 more haitians on the way. i would suggest we have a classified hearing on the ic's capabilities to share intelligence on threats to our border. is that something you would entertain, mr. chairman? >> be happy to entertain the request. >> thank you. i've got a little time left. i want to direct some questions to director haines. again, thank you for your assistance with facilitating the event i mentioned before. i would ask you how is odni postured to support more ci out reach events such as the one you helped to facilitate in my district? >> thank you, sir. first of all, thank you for facilitating the one that you did in arkansas and from my understanding from the director of the national counter intelligence and security center that participated mr. orlando it went well and i hope it was effective for the folk that is attended. this is something we do as a matter of course. we have look to facilitate these types of events. we've done them around the country. many times they are facilitated by members of congress. we work with the fbi and also the department of homeland. we try to do it in a way that's useful and providing information that helps to educate state and local authorities as well as the private sector and others who have an interest. look forward to doing additional ones. >> excellent. we have members on both sides of the aisle that would like to replicate that event. are there metrics in place to make sure ncic and others are focussed on such out reaches? >> we report on them regularly. >> thank you. my time is expired. >> mr. swalwell? >> i think the most urgent and important issue facing the workforce are the terrorizing attacks that are happening globally. my first question director burns, considering we're not doing this to our own people, they're not doing this to themselves, public reports suggest they're happening in an escalated fashion, can we stop calling them incidents and call them attacks? >> from what i know, congressman, having talked to dozens and dozens of my colleagues who have been victimized is that real harm is being done to real people. we take each report very seriously. all of my colleagues do across the intelligence community. i think we've worked very hard to improve care, the care that our officers and sometimes family members deserve. we have mounted an extraordinarily vigorous effort to get to the bottom of the questions of who and what may be causing these as well. so 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 that's shared among my colleagues on this panel. >> director, we don't often have open hearings, but perhaps the individuals or the 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'll do when we find out who is doing this? >> congressman, as i said, 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 it to you. we owe it to the president to be disciplined and objective and balancing that with our compassion and sense of urgency and that's what we're determined to do as we conduct this very serious investigation. >> we owe it to the victims across the ic, the state department. i know you're doing that. it took about ten years to find and hunt down osama bin laden with a workforce dedicated to it. i hope the same effort is being made to find out who does this. when we find out who does this, you'll find bipartisan support that this is a response beyond just closing down a couple consulates. it's going to have to be a severe response. >> congressman, we're taking this very seriously as i said. the senior officer leading our task force played a central role in the successful hunt for bin laden more than a decade ago. that's a pretty clear indication of our determination, our sense of purpose on this. >> thank you, director. you know, we may not be able to persuade our colleagues or the ranking member of the value of diversity as far as it just being the 21st century and it's the right thing to do. operationally, general nakasone, would you agree if your folks are listening on counter narcotics investigations, perhaps a native spanish speaker would be helpful? >> yes, congressman. during the afghan retrograde, we did supporter forces forward of which we had several linguists that came from afghanistan, served in our military and were tremendous in understanding not only the words being spoken but the texture and context behind that. that's the power of diversity. that's why it's so important to us as an agency. >> thank you, general. director burns, we can't talk a lot about your successful operations, but we've been briefed on them in the committee. would you agree there are many, many operations that only a woman could conduct? >> yeah, no, our most successful operations are ones where we draw not just from the exceptional trade craft, but our diversity as well. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. mullin? >> thank you, mr. chairman. first i would like to associate the ranking member's remarks with michael ellis, it's very important we get those answers. with that being said, you know, most, if not all, are very familiar with my intimate involvement with evacuating americans out of afghanistan and the ongoing evacuation process that is trying to take place. i want to speak a little bit to director burns about what led up to the complete failure and chaos that took place prior to our complete pull out in afghanistan. it's reported that 130,000 people, the state department reported 130,000 people were evacuated prior to the final departure 30th of august. how many of those were americans? >> congressman, i don't know the answer to that. >> director burns, how many were americans? >> i'll get you the exact number. >> how don't we know this? this goes to a lot bigger question. we evacuated bigger question. we evacuated 130,000 people. that was touted as a success at the same time my team and myself were trying to get americans out. we had them at the gates trying to get the gate opened and we couldn't get americans through the gate. we touted it as success. in fact, word came out every american that wanted out could get out. and then the word came back that the president said that, well, there's roughly 100 people still left that wanted to get out. this was on august 31st. and you're telling me today we still don't know how those 130,000 people that the state department touted as a success of evacuation we don't know how many were actually americans? that seems i mean really odd to me. >> congressman, the number of u.s. citizens as i understand it and we'll confirm the exact number for you was well over 6,000. >> this is the problem with the chaos and amount of problems here. 31 august the number has changed from the amount of americans we said have left there. and this is what i was told this week about the evacuation by the state department. when you get them out, we'll help you get them to america. i think a lot of that has to do with the fact the numbers are changing. on august 31st the president said there were 100 to 200 americans in afghanistan who had some intentions to leave. i can tell you every single one my team has worked with has literally been willing to do everything they could to get out. everything they could to get out including an lpr with their 3-year-old daughter who died of an infection after trying to get her out for two weeks -- two weeks. and we had her there and couldn't get the state department to open the door. we had the border to tajikistan and the ambassador literally told me i'm sorry, mr. mullen, but i was told not to assist you in any way. that was a quote. and seven days later the 3-year-old girl died. and yet we still don't have a handle how many americans were in there. for instance, late last week the state department estimated there were at least 176 -- now these aren't round numbers. these are exact numbers. at least 176 who still want to leave among the 363 total american citizens in afghanistan. now, that was -- those aren't round numbers. those are exact numbers. then yesterday the pentagon said the number of americans in afghanistan are still at 439. why is there a big difference? >> the only thing i'll say, first, i very much appreciate all the effort you've made. and as you know our frss have worked hard as well to ensure that u.s. citizens who are seeking to be evacuated are evacuated. and that's continuing right now. i know from my own experience -- >> director burns i'm going to stop you there just a second. why is it i can't get help getting these other 124 out? i have 124 identified with paperwork. we've been holding onto them for three weeks. why is it that we can't put pressure on and say, hey, let them cross? why is it i was told if i fly them out, we'll help you fly the rest of the way to america. if they were serious about it, why can't ewe get them a charter and get them out? i can do that work. >> the president has made clear to ensure americans get out. and i'm glad to follow up with you to help ensure that happens. >> please do. i yield back. >> thank you all of you for your testimony today. and 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 -- on this topic. so thank you. i have a question for dr. haines. last year the gao conducted a review of the intelligence community's progress towards a more diverse work force finding their percentage of minority staff were still, quote, well below bench marks in the federal work force and civilian work force. the gao also found only three had strategic plans. what have changed since then, and are you using the recommend asians a part of your own strategic plan? and then also i'm working off a packet i assume y'all handed over to us on page 5, the demographic diversity in the ic, and following up on a point representative spear made, the most underrepresented group in the intelligence community and the federal work force is the latino community by far. latinos make up about 18.6% of the population and 7% of the ic. i mean, it's a huge gap. so what specifically -- and i would ask you because that's the largest gap by far to prioritize hiring, recruiting, promoting latinos in the intelligence community. so if you could address those things and then i've got at least one more question hopefully. >> thank you very much, representative. and really appreciate your own work on these issues. first of all, in response to the gao report there was a report before i arrived to do a joint strategy of diversity and inclusion within the intelligence community. it's still a document we're working off of. and it stretches forward from 2020 to 2023. we're working on in a sense enhancing the ambition in that space. with respect to hispanics i couldn't agree more. i think you're absolutely right. and when i look at odni in particular within the senior and executive service we're at 3% hispanic. it is really striking and just very challenging and something we need to address. so it is no -- you know, it is not a coincidence that the first university that i went to for recruiting was florida international university which has a 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. >> well, i appreciate that. i appreciate the efforts at cia and what's being done over there. >> congressman, so at the national security agency we a focused effort right now at nsa texas and working with not only our cryptoologic center down there which i think we have a tremendous population we are going to hire from. i look forward to economic bato community to talk about our successes. >> thank you. and just a last point on this as a member of this committee i'm asking you to close that gap in latino presence in the intelligence committee because it's a huge gap and it's exclusionary. director haines, a second question for you if i can find it here. i understand the odni is currently in a process of making a determination on whether holding white supremacist views would be deemed unsuitable to hold security clearance. >> thank you, representative. i'm not aware of us having that particular decision before us but we have done a lot of work on these issues in relation to security and vetting. and i can send you information on this. >> sure. thank you. with that i yield back, chair. >> mr. kelly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i associate myself with the remarks made by ranking member nunes' as to michael alice. i think that diversity and gender, race, culture, language and thought is huge -- a huge force multiplier for our intelligence community. i also know from 35 years of experience in the dod that often the things we do measure policies and procedures that make us feel good but they do not measure results and effectiveness. so i hope that you guys would do things and have marks that make sure that we're effective in what we're doing, that we're not just following policies and procedures. while not a panacea to the ic's recruiting and retention challenges the unique characteristics of the careers you offer to conduct activities otherwise forbidden seem to be a compelling factor to join. this should include minority populations. director focusing in diversity and recruiting, does our recruitment align with the demographics graduating from our colleges and universities? >> congressman, i think we can do better at, and this is where i would say i'll speak only from we have had a tendency to only recruit from a certain part of the united states and emphasize a certain part of the united states. while we've been very focused on the east coast we have to be much more broader across our nation. >> agree. and i hope you'll take that for the record. i have a few questions and i'm going to ask you make a few statements, just ask you answer yes or no to these. and if you want to further elaborate, i'll allow that at the end. do you agree the determination is highly unlikely to naturally occur without a significant and compelling mandate to do so, and i'm talking about the nsa and commander of u.s. cyber calm. do you agree the determination of the dual hat status is highly unlikely to naturally occur without a significant and compelling mandate to do so? >> i would agree. >> and do you agree cyber power requires a diversity of tools, techniques and procedures and having organizations leveraging the same tools, techniques and procedures pose an unacceptable risk to both? >> i do not agree. >> do you agree that support to u.s. cyber comhas eroded national security support requirements? >> i do not agree and i'll have to come back to that one. >> okay. and do you agree that the span of control necessary to manage two organizations with different mentions is wide and increasing? >> i do not agree and i'll come back to that one as well. >> and do you agree thereprocesses in place that encourage and facilitate all levels of the mission? >> i mind imagine you're speaking between the national security agency and u.s. cyber command? >> yes. >> at times. >> i do agree encouraging each organization to focus on their respective, unique mission areas is the next logical step, and this will be facilitated by splitting the leadership roles. >> i do not agree. >> each of the eight statements i asked you about were published in an assessment of cyber command and national security agency. the assessment was commissioned by the deputy commission of defense whether or not you agree with each of their conclusions do you believe the cochairs responsible for this assessment possess the independence, experience and expert knowledge necessary to undertake the assessment requested by deputy secretary work? >> i would agree they have certain experience. i would ever, however, say experience is based upon time. >> and as director of nsa and commander of u.s. cyber com. can you tell me what fully operational capability means? >> there were a set of standards, congressman, four years ago that the command had to achieve, and they achieved those based upon a numeric rating. >> okay. and i recognize the assessment was commissioned by dod and not nsa, but i'm concerned it was placed on the shelf for years. but the committee received a copy only after the markups for the 2022 budget was completed. and i support the provisions of the iaa which provide additional support on these issues, but i want to give you an opportunity to expand. and with that i yield back. >> and i appreciate the opportunity to comment a bit more fully. >> when i took over the role of both the director of national security agency of u.s. and cyber command i committed in my testimony to do an evaluation of the worth of the dual hat. i think the most important thing that i would add to that this is the fact that the way we approach that evaluation was the fact 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, congressman, is the fact the roles, missions and responsibilities of u.s. cyber command and the national security agency are even more so converging in a domain cyberspace that requires three things. it requires speed. it requires agility, and it requires community effort. the sces we've been able to have across the 2020 elections and the recent ransom ware attacks on our nation are based upon those ideas being able to react with speed, react with agility and unity effort. in terms of the question regarding the capabilities of the national security agency, the data i would welcome and the data i would be more than happy to provide is across our mission sets whether or not as adversaries, our ability to break code, our ability to make code on our cyber security side and wanting 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. and if you take a look at the intelligence community climate assessment that has been taken over the past several years what you'll see is nsa ranks among the tops in the ic for about to do it. over the past several years we've had record recruiting years, an ability to track the best and brightest in our nation that want to come to work for our agency. so i want to yield back to the chairman. >> first of all, the fact that all of you are here as the chairman said is an indication of how absolutely seriously you take this. i also want to acknowledge the wonderful work over the years of my colleague, congresswoman spear, for staying absolutely focused on this. thank you, congresswoman. i want to go to the heart of the matter, which director haines, you i think raised. is there any conflict between diversity and confidence in mission success? you want to speak directly to that? >> honestly i think there is no tension and i think they're mutually supporting of each other. as i think all of us have reflected we believe in intelligence work in particular you need diversity and perspectives to understand the world. and the reality is we need that diversity in the ic 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 those together. i don't think we can get to either without the other. >> you have had an extraordinary career serving our country ncia and dod. i think 36 years? >> yes, congressman. >> you know, you've been incredibly successful. and i think things were different starting out for african-americans than they are today. i would like you to speak to your personal journey and what changes were made, and what you have have seen given your responsibility about the benefit of a diverse work force in intelligence agencies. >> yes, congressman. thank you for that question. i think it gets to the heart of the matter in terms of what opportunities are provided for individuals who are dedicated to serving their country, not just people who may have served in uniform as i did but individuals who want toby papart of something that's bigger than themselves, who understand the issues, who can get the security clearance and all those things. and we provide unique opportunities if they're a little bit different from us. and i would support those opportunities, and i think that's really been instrumental in helping me, and one of the things i've tried to do with others. diversity in the mission at odds, i would say absolutely not. i would say they're completely in sync. in places and some of these things can't go into them in an open hearing, but in places we've had coups the only reason we know about these things is we've had linguists who speak the language and they can talk to us about what's happening in my country, what we need to do about it. that's happened much more than we can talk about in an open hearing. and those things are insightful not just for our leaders and policy makers but also our most senior decision makers in this country. >> thank you. and general, 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 couldn't even know they had. what's the importance to you and your mission about diversity? >> we need the diversity of thought, the diversity of background to make the kinds of assessments and judgments we're making we're providing to the department of defense. if we don't have diversity, if we all look like me it's not going to work. we need diversity to provide the best background we can. >> the final area or maybe the two of you could comment on was what are the pipelines? you have to be really crettive 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 in where additional congressional authorities might be helpful for you to be successful? >> so congressman, while i can't suggest additional authorities, what i can offer are some of the examples we've seen and the benefits we've been able to accrue from a broader supply chain. so 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 our agency and see what we do as a possibility of then going forward. and the second piece i would add is the director of summer program. every year over 2,000 people apply to be a director of summer intern. we're able to focus that across a number of different demographics to bring people, clear them and work very difficult problems to get after the issues of science, technology and engineering pathmatics. we hire over 80% of those people that are already clear and have experience and already understand how we do business at nsa. >> thank you. >> and the only thing i would add, congressman, we try to be as creative and energetic as we can in outreach. we started a fellowship program which is aimed at applicants coming from already serving institutions as well. and that's already proving i think to be a huge asset for us. >> and i want to express my gratitude for the hard work and seriousness and purpose you've explained to this effort. thank you. i yield back. >> mr. fitzpatrick. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for being here. i want to direct my original questions. sir, in september of this year several media outlets reported about calls general milly had with a general in a chinese army in october 2020 and january 2021. according to these press reports general milly issued these reports after he had revealed classified intelligence of a likelihood of an american attack. according to these reports he reviewed classified information, called a cithese general and addressed the underlying content directly with the chinese military. that clearly raises potential counter intelligence concerns. has the government issued a counter intelligence investigation related to general milley's discussion with the chinese military? >> not that i'm aware of. >> particularly whether he may have directly or indirectly revealed any sources or methods. >> no. >> do you know whether the calls general milley had with general lee were recorded? >> not that i'm aware of. >> according to press reports dod provided a summary note of his calls with chinese general lee to the ic. did you receive those summary notes? >> i did not. >> the ranking member had asked about the alleged security violations with mr. ellis and who at the state department was involved. do you know who made those allegations? >> congressman, i do not. >> so you can't provide any details on the accusers? >> i cannot, congressman. >> on september 23rd we wrote to the dod about this issue that i referred to earlier regarding general milley asking for materials related to these calls including a list of all calls general milley had with the chinese officials during this time. copies of the underlying intelligence that reportedly prompted general milley to reach out to the chinese general. unfortunately, dod has not given any of those to us yet. >> that's not my area. i will take your questions back to the department, make sure those questions are hard by the department. >> thank you. lastly, i want to turn to the issue of artificial intelligence and machine learning. we are significantly behind and this is based on my assessment having been to the majority of the agencies in the ic, having come from the ic myself is that our challenge with ai 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 ic to partner with the private sector whereby 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're going to be able to pichbt to keep up with china and focus on the technological developments that we need to make to totally transform the ic, totally transform the department of defense. >> congressman, if i might i'd like to invite you to talk about the infrastructure, the data, the tools and personnel that goes with that. i think that would provide a good foundation where we're headed. and i think for the most part we're leading much of what is going on in the commercial sector as well. >> congressman, i'd like to invite you back to it's taking the best of what industry can offer. >> and congressman, i'll just add from the ic perspective we had a science and technology director that workswise the science and technology directors at each of the elements in the ic to support the work being done in artificial intelligence and we have a lot of work to do, and this is a space we're focused on. >> congressman, i would add the deputy secretary of defense is leading ai. >> congressman, all i would add i mention the example of vastly accelerating or onboarding process. a lot of has to do with applying ai in our processes as well. >> i just want to thank you all for your service. very, very hard job you have but it's very, very important. so we appreciate you. i yield back. >> representative demings. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. and thank you to all of you for being here today to discuss diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility in the ic 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 ic community. they don't all look like me, and they don't all look like you. they look like america. and that's something i believe every member of this committee should celebrate. so i want to thank you for the work you've done. i know that we still have work to do, but i've been pleased that we're 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 onboarding 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 -- to that? >> well, it's going to take a sustained effort, but we're determined to accomplish that over the next couple of years. what it takes is applying artificial intelligence and machine learning and ensuring we have an electronic and not a manual process. we can't cut any corners on security clearances but we can accelerate the process by taking advantage of new technologies. and we learned some of this, you know, over the course of the pandemic experience. in other words, what are the kinds of things we can do virtually to help to speed the process -- >> of course as a former police chief i would never suggest we cut security clearances, but i believe you indicated this diversity and inclusion and accessibility is like i think you said your second objective in terms of priorities. so 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 ic community? >> i think, ma'am, it involves continued progress and a sense of urgency and recruiting in the onboarding process, in retention and mentoring and especially demonstrating there's a clear professional pathway all the way to the senior most levels of our agency for officers whose performance warrants that whatever their background. and that's what we're determined to achieve. >> at the police department we used to say that police departments should reflect the diversity of the communities of which we serve, and that diversity should be reflected at all rank levels. which means the decision makers should be a diverse community as well. could you talk just a minute about why did you decide to create a new senior ic officer role for dei and accessibility? and what was missing in the prior structure in your view? >> yes, absolutely, congresswoman. thanks, by the way, for staying through the entire hearing. i appreciate it and your work on these issues. i'll answer that question, and i would love to adif it's all right to what dr. burns said about the onboarding process. in answer to your question i setup the separate office for the following reasons. one is i wanted to have an absolute focus, frankly, on diversity, equity inclusion. someone who is 24/7 so to speak focused on that issue, that's number one reason. number two, i find it's both the eeo, the equal employment opportunity office director and the person focused on diversity will report directly to me. so neither one of them in a sense are getting further down into the work chart. but both of them have to work through partnerships with different parts of the ic for different purposesch and i actually think it's critical for the person focus odon diversity, equity and inclusion and also the equal opportunity office is one intended to be in a sense a kind of independence voice in the process. they're taking complaints from folks on compliance issues and so on. and i think that is really something i want to preserve the independence surrounding. so those are some of my reasons. i think there's lots of people and you can look at these in different ways. i don't think it's an easy choice in some respects. and we have a separate person working on accessibility because i really do think we have to focus on that overall the average amount of time it takes from application to onboarding we provided in a report to you and congress is 419 days across the ic. there's a lot of technological pieces and a variety of administrative details so we can approve a fact you fill out a form, if there's a mistake it has to come back to the low side, gets redone, goes back up to the high side. it's astonishing how much time some of these things take. but among the things we've been working on is trying to shorten the process without cutting corners on security clearances. for example, now in the third quarter of fy 2021 the average amount of time it takes to get an initial top secret clearance is down to 143 days. so we're working in the right direction. we still have a lot of work to do across the board, and we're all inspired, frankly, by director burns idea of going to 180 days. and we're working to do that as a community. >> thank you all so very much and thank you for the work you're doing. take care. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to thank all of you for being here all morning and for your commitment and dedication to the intelligence community and your service. i also want to associate myself with the comments of mr. nunes' as it related to michael ellis and the inquiring questions he raised. i think it warrants answers, and i hope that can be accomplished. i want to follow up on mr. stewerts questions as it related to the federal vaccine mandate. and maybe, director burns, i'll start with you. is the agency prepared to terminate hundreds if not thousands of cia employees, case officers and intelligence professionals if the vaccine is not abided by? >> congress, i'll say several things. first, we're fortunate to have about a 97% vaccination rate for our career officers. so it's a very high pruporpgz of our officers who have been vaccinated. second, we follow the law. we're operating with a federal mandate here which makes a determined condition of employment not just at the cia but across the federal government to be vaccinated. there are as director haines mentioned before and as you know very well both religious and waver possibilities. and we have a number -- i think around 250 sort of pending religious waiver applications and a number of medical waiver applications as well which we take very, very seriously. >> but also the mandate as i understand it affects contractors and subcontractors and people you work with throughout the ic community, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and i know you mentioned 97%, but if there were hundreds you'd have to terminate you'd have to follow the law and terminate them at the appropriate time, correct? >> we'll follow the process that's been laid out under the law, but potentially it could come to that, yes, sir. and is it fair to say that determination of hundreds of people or whatever the number is would have a devastating effect on the agency and your mission? is that fair to say? >> no, sir. i think we're going to be able to continue to fulfill our mission just as, you know, the american people expect and with a very high vaccination rate i would take very seriously those officers who apply for those kinds of waivers. but i'm confident we'll be able to fulfill our mission very effectively. >> and just walk me through the process. as i understand it november 22nd is the date that the vaccine -- that they have to have the information in. and then there's a suspension period, and then the 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 youbri them back? how does that determination process work? >> i'd be glad to describe the process in more detail, but there is a process that's laid out across the federal government that will follow. but as i said, you know, given the very high vaccination rate across the agency, i don't anticipate there's going to be a lot of these cases we'll have to sort through, but we'll take very seriously and we'll give every officer involved in that process every opportunity to pursue alternatives. >> and in terms of i do think there are as you look at the legal issues here and the constitutional issues on the mandate, obviously this was not a mandate that was passed. this was an executive order. would it make sense to ask for a delay until the u.s. supreme court decides on this? the last executive order the 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 ic terminating employees? >> the only thing i could comment on, congressman, from the perspective of cia is simply to say we're going to follow the law and processes laid out in the federal government. >> have you asked the white house to ask for a delay until the supreme court makes a decision on the definitive legal issues here? >> no, sir. but that's my role as i said as is the role of all my colleagues here on the panel is to follow the law and follow the procedures that are laid out, and that's what we're doing. >> but i assume it's not in your interest to terminate long-term employees of your agency. >> no, it's in our interest to try to retain every employee, every career officer 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. >> i guess what i'm saying is it would seem to me none of you want to go through the process of terminating employers, contractors, subcontractors. that's going to come here pretty quickly in the next month. this is going to 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. and we're not talking about -- and i think the ic is different, right, 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. and i think thinking about a delay or exemption for the ic until the u.s. supreme court decides on this makes a lot of sense. i yield back. >> 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 and equity inclusion which really has nothing to do with this hearing i do not associate myself with the remarks of the ranking member. i think he was a terrible choice, a political and partisan choice from a position at nsa, and i think the security issues, classified information issues are serious. and i do not associate myself with any of the comments that have been made by mr. ellis by the members of the minority. i want to thank you all for your participation today and for the efforts you're making to make the ic a more diverse workplace. i share the conclusions i think you all do this will improve the quality and capabilities of the ic that's vital to the mission of the ic. and we look forward to following up with you in greater detail with the information we have sought that cannot be discussed in open session. but once again i appreciate all of you being here today. i think it's a testament to the priority that you all place on these issues within the ic. as my colleague said this is the first time we've had a hearing like this with all the agency heads represented here today for many years. thank you for the priority you're putting on this personally. we'll be following up with you. members are here by granted up to three legislative days to answer questions, and your answers will be made part of the formal hearing record. and with that the committee stands adjourned. >> one year ago protesters broke through police security and occupied the u.s. capitol. on the one year anniversary of the january 6th attack on the capitol we look back on that day live on c-span beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on "washington journal" taking your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets. and at 1:00 p.m. eastern librarian of commerce leads a discussion on january 6 place in american history. and then at 2:30 p.m. eastern lawmakers take part in a forum sharing their thoughts and reflections on that day. at 5:30 p.m. eastern member of the house and senate gather on the center steps of the u.s. capitol for a prayer vigil. and following the vigil we'll reair events from the day and take your phone calls. the anniversary of the january 6th attack on the capitol live thursday on c-span or watch on the go on our new c-span mobile app. or search our video library where we'll find coverage on the attack on the capitol and the government's response. >> download c-span's new mobile app and stay up-to-date with live video coverage of the day's political events from live streams of the house and senate floor and key congressional hearings to white house events and supreme court oral arguments, even our live interactive morning program, washington journal, where we hear your voices every day. c-span now has you covered. download the app for free today. c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we're funded by these television companies and more including cox. >> cox is committed to providing eligible families access to affordable internet, bridging the digital divide one connected and engaged student at a time. cox, bringing us closer. >> cox supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. a number of state department officials testify now on u.s. policy in latin america and the caribbean before the senate foreign relations committee. they're asked about several conflicts including drug trafficking, the removal of the colonial organization from a foreign terrorist list and kidnapping of mission members in haiti. this is just over two hours.

Related Keywords

Arkansas , United States , Taiwan , Afghanistan , Washington , Florida , China , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Russia , Wuhan , Hubei , Spain , Haiti , West Point , Americans , America , Afghan , Spanish , Chinese , Haitians , Russian , American , Upton Sinclair , Michael Ellis , Chris Stewart , Nancy Pelosi , Tucker Carlson , Daniel Hawthorne , Michael Alice , Dan Hoffman ,