Hearings
Hearing Type:
Open
Date & Time:
Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - 8:30am
Location:
Hart 216
Witnesses
Full Transcript
[Senate Hearing 115-85]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-85
OPEN HEARING TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATION
OF DAVID J. GLAWE FOR UNDER
SECRETARY FOR INTELLIGENCE AND ANALYSIS,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
OF THE
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Intelligence
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
26-126 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
[Established by S. Res. 400, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.]
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina, Chairman
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia, Vice Chairman
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
MARCO RUBIO, Florida RON WYDEN, Oregon
SUSAN COLLINS, Maine MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
ROY BLUNT, Missouri ANGUS KING, Maine
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
TOM COTTON, Arkansas KAMALA HARRIS, California
JOHN CORNYN, Texas
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky, Ex Officio
CHUCK SCHUMER, New York, Ex Officio
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Ex Officio
JACK REED, Rhode Island, Ex Officio
----------
Chris Joyner, Staff Director
Michael Casey, Minority Staff Director
Kelsey Stroud Bailey, Chief Clerk
CONTENTS
----------
JUNE 28, 2017
OPENING STATEMENTS
Burr, Hon. Richard, Chairman, U.S. Senator from North Carolina... 1
Warner, Hon. Mark R., Vice Chairman, U.S. Senator from Virginia.. 2
WITNESSES
Hon. Chuck Grassley, U.S. Senator from Iowa...................... 3
David J. Glawe, Nominee for Under Secretary for Intelligence and
Analysis, Department of Homeland Security...................... 4
Prepared Statement........................................... 7
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
Questionnaire for Completion by Presidential Nominees............ 22
Prehearing Questions and Responses............................... 34
Questions for the Record......................................... 60
OPEN HEARING TO CONSIDER THE
NOMINATION OF DAVID J. GLAWE
FOR UNDER SECRETARY
FOR INTELLIGENCE AND ANALYSIS,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Select Committee on Intelligence,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 8:35 a.m. in Room
SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard Burr
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Committee Members Present: Senators Burr (presiding),
Warner, Cornyn, Manchin, and Harris.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, CHAIRMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NORTH CAROLINA
Chairman Burr. I'd like to call the hearing to order.
I'd like to welcome our witness today, David Glawe,
President Trump's nominee to be the next Under Secretary for
Intelligence and Analysis of the Department of Homeland
Security. David, congratulations on your nomination.
I'd also like to take a moment to recognize the sizable
family contingent you have behind you today, and thank your
husband Perry for his unwavering support. I think it's also
important to pay tribute and thanks--thank your family for its
honorable government service. Perry's a Supervisory Special
Agent at the FBI. Your father Jim Glawe served in the Korean
War. Your brother-in-law Gerardo Salinas served in Desert Storm
and your sister Dr. Jane Glawe works at the V.A. I thank all of
you for your service to your country and your dedication and
selfless service.
Our goal in conducting this hearing is to enable the
Committee to consider Mr. Glawe's qualifications and to allow
for a thoughtful deliberation by our members. He's already
provided substantive written responses to more than 80
questions presented by the Committee and its members. Today, of
course, members will be able to ask additional questions of the
nominee. David, let me just warn you: When you see nobody
beside Mark and I, this is a good thing for a nominee.
[Laughter.]
David comes to us with more than 24 years of national
security and law enforcement experience. He began his career as
a Houston police officer, before serving as a Federal agent
with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and as a Special Agent
with the FBI. In 2012, Mr. Glawe was named the Deputy National
Intelligence Manager for Threat and Finance and Transnational
Organized Crime, before serving as the Chief Intelligence
Officer for the United States Customs and Border Protection
Office of Intelligence.
Mr. Glawe is currently supporting the National Security
Council as a Special Assistant to the President and Senior
Director for Homeland Security.
David, you've been asked to lead the Department of Homeland
Security's Intelligence and Analysis component at a time when
we are facing complex, evolving, and continuous threats to the
homeland. The intelligence community is tracing threats from
State and non-State actors to our cyber and critical
infrastructure, and we continue to debate the scope and scale
of our U.S. intelligence collection and legal authorities. I
expect you will be a forceful advocate for the intelligence
community in those discussions, while maintaining a steadfast
respect for the rule of law.
As I mentioned to prior nominees before this Committee, I
can assure you that the Senate Intelligence Committee will
continue to faithfully follow its charter and conduct vigorous
and real-time oversight over every intelligence community
entity, its operations, and its activities. We'll ask difficult
and probing questions of you and your staff, and we expect
honest, complete, and timely responses.
Your law enforcement and intelligence experience prepare
you well to support DHS and I'm hopeful that you will look at
the Department with a fresh set of eyes and a new perspective
as you chart its course moving forward. I look forward to
supporting your nomination and ensuring consideration without
delay. I want to thank you again for being here, for your years
of service to your country, and I look forward to your
testimony.
I now recognize the Vice Chairman for any comments he might
have.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK R. WARNER, U.S. SENATOR FROM
VIRGINIA
Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Glawe. And let me say I think this is the
earliest Intelligence Committee meeting I've ever attended, and
it shows my commitment to your appearance and the questions I
have for you that--because, unlike the Chairman who only lives
close, I actually live back in my home State of Virginia, and
when I was--I can assure you, when I was governor there was a
lot less traffic.
So, congratulations on your nomination as the Head of the
Office of Intelligence and Analysis. This position sits at a
critical juncture between the analytic work of the intelligence
community and the information-sharing role of the Department of
Homeland Security. If confirmed, your job will be to ensure
that the critical pieces of information are delivered
immediately throughout the Department, as well as to your
partners at Federal, State, local, and tribal department and
agencies that need it.
I believe that you have an understanding of this need,
given your background in law enforcement and the intelligence
community. I also appreciate the support you have received from
my friend, former ODNI Jim Clapper, and from law enforcement
organizations representing the Nation's chiefs of police,
county sheriff's and narcotics officers.
But let's be clear. DHS INA requires a strong leader. While
the organization's mission is defined, it continues to evolve
and mature since the creation of DHS over a decade ago. I
remain concerned about the level of sharing with law
enforcement, the large contractor workforce, and the whole
fusion center concept. We have a fusion center in Virginia.
Conceptually it makes sense. I'm not sure it's been implemented
in the right way and would love to again have your fresh set of
eyes look at this.
The truth is this job has never been easy and it's not
going to be easy now going forward. If you are confirmed, I
will also expect your full cooperation with this Committee's
bipartisan investigation into Russia's cyber attacks and
interference in our 2016 presidential election and the concerns
about future meddling with our election and voting systems.
I've asked DHS to share with this Committee, even if we
cannot reveal them publicly, the names of the 21 states that
the Department testified last week were attacked by Russian
hackers. I've written to, and spoken with, Secretary Kelly
about this matter and, as the oversight Committee for all
intelligence issues, this Committee is entitled to have that
information.
I want to thank the Chairman because this week the Chairman
and I sent a letter to all relevant State election officials
asking that this information be made public. As I said last
week, I don't see how Americans are made safer when they do not
know which State election systems the Russians potentially
attacked. And I particularly feel this way since my home State
of Virginia has major State elections this year.
Again, thank you for appearing before the Committee and I
look forward to your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Burr. Thank you, Vice Chairman. I can attest to
the fact this is the earliest he has ever been here.
[Laughter.]
I'd like to now recognize the Chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee to introduce our nominee, Senator Chuck
Grassley. Senator Grassley, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, U.S. SENATOR FROM IOWA
Senator Grassley. Thank you, Senator Burr and Ranking
Member Warner.
Before I read a three or four minute statement, I'd like to
say that I'm proud to be here to introduce to the Committee a
person whose family and he has deep roots in Iowa, and glad to
be here. I think if I could probably give one sentence, which
would repeat something you said as you talked about him,
because I'll be repetitive of some of the things you said, but
you talked about his honorable service within government and
his public service, well-qualified to take this position.
So I would emphasize that as I say that I'm proud to
recognize David Glawe as the nominee for Under Secretary for
Intelligence and Analysis at DHS. He is a dedicated public
servant with over 20 years of national security and law
enforcement experience. He currently serves on the National
Security Council as Special Assistant to the President and
Senior Director for Homeland Security.
Prior to this, the nominee served as Chief Intelligence
Officer for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Mr. Glawe
is a former police officer and Federal agent with both the U.S.
Postal Inspection Service and the FBI. In 2007 he served in
Iraq and Africa on a joint FBI deployment with the Department
of Defense. Following this tour, he was a senior adviser at the
National Counterterrorism Center.
In 2012, the nominee was named Deputy National Intelligence
Manager for Threat, Finance, and Transnational Organized Crime,
where he oversaw and integrated the intelligence community's
data collections and analysis. In 2014, he began serving as
National Security Council--on that Council, as a senior
intelligence official, responsible for implementing the
President's strategy on transnational organized crime. In 2015,
Mr. Glawe was awarded the National Intelligence Superior
Service Medal for his extraordinary contribution to the U.S.
intelligence community and our Nation's security.
The nominee is an Iowa native, as I've said, still has
family in Iowa. He's a graduate of my alma mater, the
University of Northern Iowa, and also a graduate of Harvard
University's JFK School of Government. He got started in law
enforcement and advanced his impressive career with
characteristically outstanding Iowa work ethic.
He shared with me how much these roots mean to him and I
appreciate his commitment to putting them to work in this new
position for our Nation, as he has several positions in the
past. Mr. Glawe's mother, Nancy, is someone who I've crossed
paths with for a long time in Iowa as well, I'm proud to say.
And I know she's glad to be here with the rest of her family
and his friends today to celebrate with him and to support him
through this process.
Thank you for holding this hearing and I urge you to
support his nomination to fill this very important post. Thank
you.
Chairman Burr. Chairman Grassley, thank you for that very
thorough introduction.
And before, David, I ask you to stand and be sworn in, I
want to recognize your mother, Nancy. I didn't recognize her
earlier when I recognized your dad. Also, I want to recognize
Wyatt, even though he left the room, and your daughter Alexis,
who is just an absolute doll.
If you will, raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
Mr. Glawe. Yes, I do.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID J. GLAWE, NOMINATED TO BE UNDER SECRETARY
FOR INTELLIGENCE AND ANALYSIS, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Chairman Burr. Please be seated. David, you're now sworn in
and before we move to your statement I'd like to ask you five
standard questions that the Committee poses to each nominee who
appears before us. They just require a simple yes or no answer,
for the record.
Do you agree to appear before the Committee here or in
other venues when invited?
Mr. Glawe. Yes.
Chairman Burr. If confirmed, do you agree to send officials
from your office to appear before the Committee and designated
staff, when invited?
Mr. Glawe. Yes.
Chairman Burr. Do you agree to provide documents or any
other material requested by the Committee in order for us to
carry out its--our oversight and legislative responsibilities?
Mr. Glawe. Yes.
Chairman Burr. Will you both ensure that your office and
your staff provide such materials to the Committee when
requested?
Mr. Glawe. Yes.
Chairman Burr. Do you agree to inform and fully brief to
the fullest extent possible all members of the Committee of
relevant intelligence activities, rather than only the Chair
and the Vice Chairman?
Mr. Glawe. Yes.
Chairman Burr. Thank you very much. We'll now proceed,
David, to your opening statement. The floor is yours.
Mr. Glawe. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Burr, Vice Chairman Warner, members of the
Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today as the President's nominee for Under Secretary for
Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland
Security. I'm honored to have been nominated by President Trump
and I'm humbled to receive the support by Secretary Kelly,
Deputy Secretary Duke, and Director of National Intelligence
Coats.
Before we begin, I'd like to thank Senator Grassley. Born
and raised in the State of Iowa, I've learned at an early age
about the importance of civic duty and serving your community.
I've never dreamed that one day I would have the opportunity to
meet and get to know an Iowa legend, a true Iowa legend. Thank
you.
I want to thank again Senator Grassley for the heartfelt
introduction and nearly 60 years of service to the country and
the people of Iowa.
Next, I'd like to take a moment to recognize my family. I'm
grateful for their support and sacrifice that allowed me this
opportunity. With us today are the bedrocks of my life, my 20-
year partner and husband, Perry Goerish, an FBI Supervisory
Special Agent at the Washington Field Office, and our two
wonderful children, Alexis and Wyatt. I think Wyatt had to
leave here. Also here is my father, Jim Glawe, who's an Army
veteran drafted for the Korean War; my mother, Nancy Glawe, a
retired kindergarten teacher, both from Davenport, Iowa; my
sister, Dr. Jane Glawe, who works for Veterans Affairs Medical
Center; and her husband, Gerardo Salinas, a Desert Storm
veteran and also worked for the Veterans Affair in the
Davenport office; my mother-in-law Beverly Goerish, a lifelong
volunteer in her community in Kiester, Minnesota.
And I want to recognize my deceased father-in-law Roger
Goerish who retired as a high school teacher and athletic
coach, who is here with us in spirit. I would also like to
thank my family and friends--or my friends and coworkers who
have supported me throughout my life. I would not have this
opportunity without them.
The mission statement of DHS is clear and direct. With
honor and integrity, we will safeguard the American people, our
homeland, and our values. DHS faces a complex and evolving
threat environment and must work across the Federal Government
in concert with our State, local, tribal, territorial, and
private sector partners.
I have over 24 years in law enforcement and intelligence
experience, and if confirmed, I will apply those knowledge and
lessons learned to drive intelligence and operational
integration and share information, deliver unique analysis, and
identify vulnerabilities, position resources, and ultimately
mitigate threats.
I&A has one of the broadest customer bases in the
intelligence community. In meeting the varied demands of the
challenge, if confirmed, I intend to focus I&A's analytic
capacity on areas where they are positioned to add value, areas
like trade, travel, cyber, borders, marine, and aviation
security.
I&A's greatest strength, without question, is its people.
If confirmed, it will be my honor to lead the Homeland
Intelligence professionals at I&A as we endeavor to implement
Secretary Kelly's vision by meeting the needs of the primary
customers, integrating intelligence and operations, and making
I&A a diverse, mission-focused and productive environment for
the workforce.
In closing, I'd like to take a moment to recognize the
important role Congress plays in the success of I&A. If
confirmed, I pledge to enable the Committee to fill that role
by keeping you fully informed and transparent on I&A's
activities and developments.
Mr. Chairman, I will stop there and submit the remainder of
my comments for the record. Thank you again for the opportunity
to appear before you today, and I look forward answering
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Glawe follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Burr. David, thank you very much. And once again,
I thank all of your family members for their tremendous service
to the country and, more importantly, to the security of this
country.
With that, I'm going to turn to the Vice Chairman to start
with questions.
Vice Chairman Warner. Mr. Glawe, let me also recognize your
family, very impressive. And I know they've got to be all very,
very proud of you.
I want to start with a couple questions in relation to our
hearing last week and just kind of get your sense on this. I
want to make--in addition to the questions the Chairman asked,
will you commit as well to working with this Committee as we go
forward on our ongoing Russian investigation, making sure that
we get as much access as possible, making yourself available,
necessary materials, intelligence reports, cables, products and
other materials, and make sure those are, if requested, are
provided to this Committee as quickly as possible?
Mr. Glawe. Absolutely.
Vice Chairman Warner. Mr. Glawe, one of things that came
away last week was a real concern--and again, while not
directly related, I'd just like to your view. We had
representatives from DHS here. They had indicated 21 states had
been subject to at least some level of Russian incursion. But
it became evident through the testimony that in many cases the
only contact that was made with those states may not have even
been to the top election official, the Secretary of State or
other election official. It might have just been to the vendor
who might've been having the voter registration role.
I think the Chairman and I both feel that we are not made
safer by keeping that information private. We understand that
DHS views the states have a collaborative relationship with the
states and want to maintain that collaborative relationship,
but they have, in effect, viewed the states as victims, and
consequently almost feel like it's the obligation of the State
to come forward.
But we had the top election officials from Indiana and from
Wisconsin here. Neither one of them knew whether their states
had been attacked. We had the Illinois State election official
here who had clearly indicated he was the victim of an attack,
but until the testimony, the previous testimony of DHS, had not
realized, had never been told by DHS that it was actually
Russia who was behind the attack into the Illinois system.
What I'd like you to do is just commit to work with us as
we try to sort through this, recognizing that there's no effort
here to relitigate 2016 or to embarrass any State, but we've
got to make sure that the states that were the subject of
attacks are prepared, so that that information can filter down
to local election officials so that they can all take the
necessary precautions.
Do you want to comment on that? Any thoughts you might have
on how we might be able to address this problem?
Mr. Glawe. Sure. Senator, thank you for the question and I
appreciate the opportunity to discuss that. I did watch most of
the testimony last week as well. I share your concerns
regarding the states and the Russian intrusion into the State
election systems. And I also understand the challenges with
sharing that information regarding the individual states'
vulnerabilities.
I am committed to work with you and to be completely
transparent with that. And I understand the need to understand
who's been hacked or that the intrusion occurred and the unique
vulnerabilities to each State, which may be different, and
working through those challenges.
And I concur with you completely. The solutions aren't
going to be easy and the problem is increasing. And I fully
commit, if confirmed, to work with you, sir.
Vice Chairman Warner. And I would hope that you would be
willing to share with us, even if it's on a confidential basis,
this Committee, so that we can, you know, again figure out a
way to sort through to make sure that we're better prepared.
Mr. Glawe. Absolutely, Senator.
Vice Chairman Warner. All right. I'm going to hold you to
that, because I look forward to working with you.
I'm down to the last minute. Let me just ask you this. One
of the things, as I mentioned in my opening statement, the
concept of the fusion center makes a great deal of sense. I do
wonder at times if there's not duplication and just wonder
whether you have--you know, we're many years in now to this
concept. Is it working the right way? And since you're at the
nub of this kind of intelligence and analysis, what would you
do to improve this concept? Or do you feel like it's working?
Mr. Glawe. Senator, again thank you for the question. I
appreciate the opportunity to talk about that. I was actually
on the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Richmond, where one of the
first fusions centers was stood up in Virginia. So I'm very
familiar with it and the challenges. And coming from the State
and local perspective, I also have a unique posture of I
understand what the needs are of the State, State
municipalities, as well.
If confirmed, I think I'll need an opportunity to wrap my
arms around a little bit better on the business structure they
have. Each State operates differently, and that's been a
challenge. I'm committed to work with the Committee and
yourself on those challenges and to have a thorough assessment.
What I can say is when meeting with numerous of the
organizations that graciously supported me and the chiefs and
the State law enforcement, we see the need for it. We need a
method to share information. I think without question there can
be improvements in that. And I know Under Secretary Taylor, my
predecessor if confirmed, was working in that direction and I'm
obligated--I'm obligated and I'm committed to do that as well.
Vice Chairman Warner. Yes, I don't have a--I don't have a
set of recommendations. I do think the whole concept, though,
needs a fresh look. And I look forward to working with you on
that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Burr. Senator Cornyn.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congratulations Mr. Glawe. And anything's--Chairman
Grassley, anyone he supports usually guarantees my support. So
I look forward to your service, continued service to the
country.
I do have just a broad question about cybersecurity. During
the debates we in Congress have had about cybersecurity, we've
been unable to overcome the silos that Congress itself has
built when it comes to jurisdiction over this issue. And the
concerns we've had about the organization of the Department of
Homeland Security since 9/11, and the challenges it's had just
culturally dealing with so many different disparate agencies
now under the umbrella of DHS.
But I'd be interested in your views about the shortcomings
and maybe the opportunities that we have to deal with the cyber
threat because it seems to me like we are doing a poor job as
an all-of-government approach.
Mr. Glawe. Senator, thank you for the question. And also
thank you, thank you for meeting with me privately and going
over some these issues. I think it's a tremendous opportunity
in the Department to have an integrated business enterprise
towards this. The illicit pathways of the cyber threat know no
boundaries and know no borders. Transnational criminal
organizations, terrorist organizations, foreign intelligence
organizations, and non-State actors threaten our cyber and
threaten the critical infrastructure.
I have had some initial briefings on our cyber posture
within DHS. If confirmed, I would need to unpack that business
process we have in place. But what I can commit, Senator, if
confirmed, is I will bring a sense of urgency, because that's
the whole world I came from. I've served the public, I've
served the community, with a sense where you didn't go home at
the end of the night until the threats were mitigated. I view
cyber in very much that same lane.
I think it's--not within just DHS, within the U.S.
Government, we can say we have room for improvement, and I look
forward to working with--with you and the Committee, if
confirmed, on that challenge.
Senator Cornyn. Well, people understandably are skeptical
of our perhaps most capable government agency when it comes to
cyber, which is NSA. And so by default it seems like the
Department of Homeland Security must assume that role as the
intermediary between our agencies like the NSA and the private
sector, who views with skepticism also the government's ability
to keep information confidential when it--when there's so much
at risk from a business standpoint, when information about
cyber attacks, successful cyber attacks, becomes news.
So we look forward to getting your recommendation and I
would just encourage you. We need somebody at the Department to
stand up and speak with clarity about what we as policymakers
need to do to better deal with this threat, because, as I said,
I don't think we're doing a very good job right now.
Thank you.
Chairman Burr. Senator Manchin.
Senator Manchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Glawe for being here. But first, let me
thank your family for the service they've given to our country,
each one of them, and for you to continue in that footstep of
serving our great country.
Let me ask first of all if you can tell me a little bit
about your experience as a police officer in Houston and how
that has shaped your service, your dedication to service, and
being able to lead the DHS with a different perspective than
most who have worked themselves through the ranks?
Mr. Glawe. Senator, thank you for the question and thank
you for meeting with me yesterday afternoon. It was a real
pleasure, an honor, to meet you. I've spent a lot of time in
West Virginia at our advanced training center out there and
it's a wonderful State and a wonderful facility. And thank you
for that opportunity to talk about that.
As a Houston police officer, I was 22 years old when I got
out of the academy, and I was--sorry, I had just turned 23. I
was the youngest police officer in the department when I hit
the streets. And I responded to people's homes on the worst day
of their lives in an effort, hopefully, to make it a little bit
better. So when you called 9-1-1 and you've responded for a
call for service, it was inevitably the worst day of someone's
life.
And with that, it brought a sense of urgency and community,
but also an understanding of how important intelligence is. At
the time, I probably didn't understand the totality of it, but
I surely do now--is we must have forward-leaning, tactical-
level intelligence to get to our operators and policymakers to
allow the appropriate decisions to be made to mitigate those
threats, and working with a sense of urgency.
What I have seen throughout my 20-plus years, working up as
an entry-level special agent in the FBI in a post-9/11
environment, is we have tended to be a reactionary intelligence
community. And we've tried to fix that. We've tried to be
proactive and get ahead of the threats. But some of the
critical nodes are we have to posture ourselves as an
intelligence enterprise to be forward-leaning to identify the
threats before they happen, because the worst-case scenario is
when you have to call 9-1-1 and a uniformed police officer has
to respond to the scene after the fact, because that will be
the worst day usually of someone's life.
Senator Manchin. What do you think is going to be the
greatest--what do you think is the greatest security threat the
United States faces?
Mr. Glawe. Thank you Senator, for the question. The illicit
pathways--the illicit pathways associated with cyber seem to be
an incredible vulnerability. And I don't want to get ahead too
much on the policy of the threat priorities that the
Administration and the Director of National Intelligence and
Secretary Kelly will set. But what I will say is, the illicit
pathways that are being used in the cyber arena in encrypted
communication, by transnational criminal organizations, by
foreign intelligence organizations, by terrorist networks, by
non-State actors that are--that are on the full spectrum of
illicit activity from child exploitation, human trafficking, to
foreign intelligence activity.
We are at a real challenging situation now, how as
policymakers and decision-makers, and I can share that
intelligence to you to make good decisions on it. And I will do
everything, and I'm committed to that, so we can keep you
informed on that, and I look forward if confirmed to working
with you on it.
Senator Manchin. The TSA comes intertwined with your
duties. Are you concerned, or do you have any concerns, with
our TSA, our technology advancements, to be able to detect any
type of foreign intervention, if you will? And how would you
build the cooperation between all those nations and countries
that have the ability to fly into our airports and use our U.S.
facilities, and the concern that you may have with them
bringing danger to our country?
Mr. Glawe. Senator, thank you for the question. And if
confirmed, I look forward to taking on that challenge, and it's
a big challenge, the information-sharing agreements and our
vetting processes to identify nefarious actors from any country
in the world, that pose a threat, from any threat vector, not
just terrorism, and again transnational criminal organizations
as well that operate just as sophisticated as a foreign
intelligence organization.
But, back to your comment about aviation security, in any
vulnerabilities we have in the aviation security arena, I don't
think there is any question that terrorist organizations still
view aviation as a threat vector that they want, they want to
attack. And a nightmare scenario is having a U.S. flag or any
fly carrier to get taken out of the sky. And it is something
that keeps all of us up tonight, and I'm committed to working
towards that and looking for those vulnerabilities with
Secretary Kelly, the Committee, and intelligence community, to
work through those threats.
Senator Manchin. My last question will be, will you, if
asked by the President, render your professional assessment,
regardless if that assessment is counter to the current
Administration's policy or viewpoint?
Mr. Glawe. Senator, thank you for that question.
Absolutely, I will always give my honest assessment with
complete integrity of the intelligence process.
Senator Manchin. Thank you. Congratulations.
Chairman Burr. Senator Harris.
Senator Harris. Thank you.
Good morning. I couldn't agree with you more on your
priorities around cyber and transnational criminal
organizations and, if confirmed, I look forward to working with
you on those.
There's been a report, and I'd just like you to give me
your perspective on it and explanation, that while you were
Acting Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, that you
withheld a report as it related to the President's executive
order on what we've called the ``Muslim Ban.'' Can you give me
your perspective on that report and what actually happened?
Mr. Glawe. Sure. Thank you, Senator, for the opportunity to
clarify that. So I had no involvement in the executive order
until the day it was released, and the report that you're
referencing there was a compilation of information that was
going to be used in the potential, or the litigation, for the
executive order. It was a combination of multiple intelligence
organizations.
The information that was contained in that report, a
majority was placed in an intelligence product that was
disseminated, and I authorized that dissemination shortly
thereafter, after that information came out, through a leak
that was in the newspaper.
Senator Harris. Was there a reason that it was withheld
before then?
Mr. Glawe. It was--Senator, it was information being
compiled in a declaration that was going to be used for the
executive order, after it was stayed.
Senator Harris. So it was work product? Is that----
Mr. Glawe. Yes, Senator.
Senator Harris. On the issue of State election
infrastructure, you mentioned that you watched or heard part of
the proceedings that we had in that regard. I'm concerned about
what we heard in regard to whether or not DHS has adopted an
adequate policy for coordinating with states. One of the
concerns that repeatedly we heard and we have heard is that the
states are concerned they don't have access to intelligence to
safeguard their systems.
And obviously, we have concerns about classified
information and those who do not have authority receiving any
classified information. How do you propose we could improve our
system to give the states more information and intelligence to
emphasize the priority they should place on concerns about
hacks?
Mr. Glawe. Senator, thank you for that question. And I have
had the initial briefings from NPPD on our infrastructure to
share information, as well as on the fusion centers. And if
confirmed, I look forward to looking at the business enterprise
of how we're doing business and having a sense of urgency.
Senator, I come from a background in that arena, throughout
my entire career, to operate with a sense of urgency,
disseminate intelligence at any classification level to
mitigate threats. I share your concern that we are not postured
possibly in that arena. But if confirmed, I need to unpack and
identify those vulnerabilities and how quickly to respond to
them.
Senator Harris. Can you give me examples of what you think
might be a remedy or what a remedy would look like? And I
appreciate the point you made earlier, which is solutions won't
be easy.
Mr. Glawe. Senator, I think I would have to take a stronger
look--I'm sorry, not stronger--a more in-depth look at our
current business structure of how that information is being
disseminated, what infrastructure is currently in place. I'd
like to say that the fusion centers would be a natural touch
point for this, but I'm not sure that they're postured today to
do that mission, especially when you're talking about
intelligence community, high-side, TOP SECRET information that
has to go down to SECRET or tear-line level to get it out
there.
And also, to echo what my predecessor Frank Taylor has
said, getting that information in a usable form to the private
sector is--and their vulnerabilities, which is tremendous. So
if confirmed, Senator, I share your concerns, and I will work
with you to work through the challenges.
Senator Harris. And if you did not see that part of the
testimony, I'd urge you to review the hearing that we had about
what may be a different approach if we're talking about a
vendor versus State officials who are elected or appointed to
represent the State through the State government system.
Mr. Glawe. Senator, thank you. And I did--so I see part of
it and some of the confusion involving the legal authorities
and disclosure. We've got to work through that. I agree with
your frustration and I'm committed to work through it if
confirmed.
Senator Harris. And if confirmed, can you give this
Committee a commitment that you will provide us with a report
about your assessment well before the 2018 election and, if
possible, provide us that report before the end of this year?
Mr. Glawe. Senator, if confirmed I absolutely commit to
that.
Senator Harris. Thank you. I have nothing else.
Chairman Burr. Thanks, Senator Harris.
David, there's been a lot of discussion about the future of
the intelligence component at DHS, how it should be structured,
how its mission's defined, what authorities it should operate
under, and who ultimately its customers are. Who do you view as
the I&A's core customer?
Mr. Glawe. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for the
question. I have a unique perspective because I was the head of
intelligence at U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the largest
component of DHS, and the largest law enforcement organization
in the United States. The customers are diverse and it's a
challenge, because it's not necessarily an either-or. We've got
the policymakers and then the senior Administration officials,
which you are the senior policy officials on this from the
legislature.
But we have the State and locals. And we're statutorily
mandated to share information with the State and locals. And we
have to do that, and we have to do it well, because we're the
only ones that are statutorily mandated to do that. But I also
see equally is the components. DHS is a powerful, powerful
organization, but they've had challenges getting information to
them, intelligence high-side information, to the most critical
components.
And I would use Customs and Border Protection as one of
those. They are the last line of defense for incoming foreign
threats, and law enforcement data will not cut it alone. We
have to--we will have to find solutions either through our
vetting and information-sharing agreements or processes to
ensure that they get all the information they need on the
border to mitigate threats.
So Senator, my apologies, I didn't quite answer with a
singular one because DHS's mission is so important with State
and locals, the DHS components, the private sector and
policymakers. We have to serve them all. And I have to, if
confirmed, come up with a business plan and process to do that
with a sense of urgency and understanding what our customers
need.
Chairman Burr. Let me ask it a little different way. What
value does I&A bring?
Mr. Glawe. Senator, thank you. I&A's mission is robust and
the employees are outstanding and they are dedicated and
committed to that. Interweaving the DHS components'
intelligence information is a critical node. They are
statutorily charged to bring Title 50 intelligence community
information to the components, with the exception of Coast
Guard, which is a stand-alone intelligence function, or I.C.
component, within DHS. And also ensuring that they are getting
information to the State and locals.
So I see that as also a heavy-pronged approach. What I
would say is, if confirmed, I would bring the mission focus,
operational focus, to ensure we're meeting our customer's need
with a sense of urgency. And I believe I said it earlier, you
know, having that mindset to deliver tactical-level and
strategic intelligence, to move resources, to be adaptive, to
mitigate threats immediately.
The men and women of I&A are incredibly dedicated,
incredible people, and, if confirmed, I hope to have the
opportunity to help them with that mission.
Chairman Burr. You've got the unique background of having
served in a number of different capacities that touch the
intelligence community and the product that comes out of it.
The Committee's been concerned for some time about the analytic
duplication that exists across government, government-wide. Do
you share that concern, and what do you see as the analytic
component of DHS, or should they be a customer of somebody
else's analytic product?
Mr. Glawe. Thank you for the question. And I have been in a
unique position throughout my career to understand that
challenge, especially as a terrorism agent in the FBI, and
looking at DHS I&A's role in the terrorism space, and the
uniqueness of the organization to provide information.
And if confirmed, I am committed to look for the business
process to ensure that there is not duplication, that we are at
I&A--or if confirmed at I&A, I would find the business process
for that unique space that they operate in, which is ensuring
State and local private sector sharing of information both
ways.
But then I also--within the DHS component, the opportunity
to enhance their missions and to integrate it within border
security, trade, travel, aviation, and critical infrastructure
is a real opportunity, I think. And to look at I&A and our
processes and business process, to facilitate that mission, and
then possibly carve out stuff that we don't need that other
organizations are doing and doing it well. But to make sure
we're efficient, we're using the taxpayers' dollars well, and
at the end of the day we're mitigating the threats.
Chairman Burr. Given the mission of your agency, as you
look forward over the next 10 years, do you see more employees
that are government employees or more employees that are
contractors, based upon what you know, the skill sets that
you're going to need to attract?
Mr. Glawe. Senator, thank you for the question. I've seen
incredibly dedicated contractors I've worked for in my prior
capacity. But I believe a workforce, a continuing workforce, a
historical workforce, with the knowledge coming up through the
ranks, like I said I have, and also maintaining an employee
business environment so we retain employees and we're
competitive, is critical to DHS I&A.
So I've seen the Committee's past reports on reducing the
number of contractors and I'm committed to that as well, and I
agree that we would continue to have a government workforce and
maintaining quality employees from the entry level and having
career progressions all the way up through the senior executive
ranks. I think I'm a benefit of those type of career paths and
I'd like to include that at DHS I&A if confirmed.
Chairman Burr. Listen, I'm going to put you on the spot. In
your view, is there any overlap in DHS's and FBI's efforts to
counter violent extremists, as others have expressed?
Mr. Glawe. Senator, thank you for the question. I think
there is potential overlap there, but business solutions and
partnerships, which I will bring with the FBI, are easy for me.
I know the FBI well. I'm friends with them. I grew up with them
through our management change.
But the uniqueness of I&A, incorporating suspicious
activity and partnering with State and local and tribal and
private sector partners is the unique spot that I&A's in and
can fill. Where the FBI is a case-driven, investigative-driven,
organization, DHS I&A is not. And my job in I&A is to ensure
the information and the intelligence is shared on those types
of threats. And I think we have an opportunity, in partnership
with the FBI and our local partners, in that threat space.
Chairman Burr. I&A is such a small piece of DHS. Do you
have any concerns about getting lost relative to the
Secretary's view of what I&A is or should be or can be?
Mr. Glawe. Senator, I do. I think the critical thing is
scoping the mission with having the mid-level and entry-level
managers understanding our mission directly, so we are focused
on the main mission of keeping the homeland safe. We can't be
everything to everyone, and that could cause challenges. So the
scoping in the business plan in my opinion, if confirmed, is
going to be the critical aspects of I&A moving out on a
mission-oriented integrated approach.
Chairman Burr. I encourage you to make sure that I&A is a
full partner in the enterprise there, versus just the agency
you turn to when there is an ``oh blank'' moment.
I'm going to turn to the Vice Chairman.
Vice Chairman Warner. I appreciate your comments. and I
just want to follow up on what I raised and Senator Harris
raised. I was surprised last week when we had the head of all
the association of secretaries of state, who basically viewed
that the designation of our electoral system as critical
infrastructure, she felt that was a burden rather than an
asset. And this--again, not sure this will exactly fall within
your purview, but I wanted to just reemphasize that something
is wrong with our system if we have information and we feel
like our top State election officials are not cleared at an
appropriate security clearance level, to actually get briefed
on that information.
And again, I think we missed--dodged a bullet in 2016
because none of the systems were penetrated to a level that
affected. But if there's one word that we've heard from the
I.C., it's that the Russians will be back. And I would hope
we'd get to a point where if you are designated critical
infrastructure, you felt that that was a net positive to your
institution and DHS was providing both asset support and
information-sharing in a way that--that, again, make sure that
our most critical component of our democratic process, our
voting systems, are appropriately protected.
And again, I hope you'll think through that. I know it's
kind of a new area, and I appreciated the comments from DHS
last week. But this is something we've got to get to with a
real sense of urgency, immediately.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Burr. Thank you, Vice Chairman.
David, I want to thank you again for, one, your service to
the country, and your family's service to the country.
Senator Manchin. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Burr. Senator Manchin.
Senator Manchin. Is it possible just to follow up on one
question?
Chairman Burr. The Senator is recognized.
Senator Manchin. Thank you very much.
David, what have we learned since 9/11? You know, I
understood that we had a lot of--a lot of the intelligence
community was warned. We had a lot of chatter going on. We
knew, but it doesn't look like anybody was coordinating or
talking to anybody at all. But everyone was concerned about
that. In your evaluation, I'm sure, in taking on this role
you're going to be taking on, what do you think that maybe you
have learned, or we have learned, or we should have learned?
And how can you make sure that doesn't repeat itself?
Because you're going to be sharing this all the way down to
the level you started at. Now you're at the top of the food
chain and you know what it's like down there. That's where it's
got to be stopped. I've read all the reports on 9/11. It really
shouldn't have happened.
Mr. Glawe. Senator, thank you for that question. And I've
thought about that for many years. And coming up through the
entry-level ranks and serving with some very elite intelligence
and operational squads and teams, the one thing I've learned is
a mission-integrated, operationally focused approach, and
empowering your leaders, empowering your mid- and lower-level
managers and staff, with commander's intent, with an
operational mindset that all threats must be mitigated. You
don't go home at the end at the end of the night until those
threats are mitigated, and you share intelligence, you--you do
everything you can within the legal bounds of sharing
information with each other.
And when you do recognize stovepipes or vulnerabilities,
raise them up immediately. You can't sit on them.
I was fortunate enough early on in my career to have been
the lead on the Al-Shabaab threat in the homeland at a very
entry level, very entry level. And some incredible leaders that
I worked for allowed me to develop a program in the homeland to
mitigate that threat. And that also involved overseas partners,
foreign partners, Department of Defense, and the intelligence
organizations.
I've taken that to heart on how I view--how I view every
day I go to work is on mitigating threats. So integrating
intelligence and operations and clear and direct information
lines to policymakers. So as threats are emerging and we need
to change, we change together as a team, because I view this is
a one team, one fight, government approach. It doesn't matter
what side of the aisle you're on. It's about keeping the
country safe. I'm committed to that if confirmed, and I'll
always be committed to that.
Chairman Burr. David, again I would thank you, you for your
service, your family for your service--their service, and, more
importantly, for your willingness to fill this role that the
President's asked you to do. It's incredible. I've enjoyed your
lovely children, and if I didn't have a 15-month-old
granddaughter I'd be taking Alexis home with me today.
[Laughter.]
David, it's the Vice Chair's and my intent to move your
nomination as rapidly as we possibly can. As you know, there's
a great likelihood that we will adjourn for the Fourth of July
week tomorrow. I can assure you, if there's any way to get this
process moving forward before we leave, we'll try to do that.
Mark and I will talk. If not, we'll do it as quickly as we get
back. It's my hope that we can get you permanently placed no
later than the July timeframe.
My one reminder to you is that DHS has many bosses from a
standpoint of policy; you have one and it's this Committee. And
the intelligence that you process through the I&A is of great
interest to us. I want to go back to this duplication thing,
just very briefly, because, having served in the multiple
capacities that you have, I think you can understand my
frustration when I sit down in the morning and I go through my
intelligence reports from overnight and I find a report that I
read from five different areas and at the bottom of it the core
source was the same product.
It really makes me wonder why we need five different
interpretations of the same core product, and if that core
product is as important as I think it is, why isn't everybody
turning to them, versus trying to re-create the wheel with
every turn. So I hope you'll remember that as you serve out
this term at I&A because I really think we've got to refine
what we do and how we do it from an intelligence standpoint.
The rest of the world's changing, and they don't have the
rules and they don't have the history to encumber them like we
do in the United States. We've got to figure out how to get the
history out of the way, but the rules are going to stay. And,
we will be very aggressive from our standpoint and of our
oversight, of you and of the organization.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 9:24 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
Supplemental Material
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]