[Senate Hearing 117-82]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                         S. Hrg. 117-82

                      OPEN HEARING: NOMINATIONS OF
                         CHRISTOPHER C. FONZONE
                  TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE OFFICE
               OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE;
                                  AND
                           BRETT M. HOLMGREN
                   TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE
                     FOR INTELLIGENCE AND RESEARCH,
                        U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                    SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

                                 OF THE

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                         TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2021

                               __________

      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

45-488 			    WASHINGTON : 2021




                    SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

           [Established by S. Res. 400, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.]

                   MARK R. WARNER, Virginia, Chairman
                  MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Vice Chairman

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
RON WYDEN, Oregon                    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
ANGUS KING, Maine                    ROY BLUNT, Missouri
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado          TOM COTTON, Arkansas
BOB CASEY, Pennsylvania              JOHN CORNYN, Texas
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York      BEN SASSE, Nebraska

                  CHUCK SCHUMER, New York, Ex Officio
                 MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky, Ex Officio
                  JACK REED, Rhode Island, Ex Officio
                   JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma, Ex Officio
                              ----------                              
                     Michael Casey, Staff Director
                  Brian Walsh, Minority Staff Director
                   Kelsey Stroud Bailey, Chief Clerk
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                              MAY 18, 2021

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page

Warner, Hon. Mark R., a U.S. Senator from Virginia...............     1
Rubio, Hon. Marco, a U.S. Senator from Florida...................     3
Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, a U.S. Senator from Minnesota...............     4

                               WITNESSES

Fonzone, Christopher C., to be General Counsel for the Office of 
  the Director of National Intelligence..........................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Holmgren, Brett M., to be Assistant Secretary of State for 
  Intelligence and Research, U.S. Department of State............    10
    Prepared statement...........................................    12

                         SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

Nomination material for Christopher C. Fonzone
    Questionnaire for Completion by Presidential Nominees........    34
    Additional Pre-Hearing Questions.............................    62
    Post-Hearing Questions.......................................    97
Nomination material for Brett M. Holmgren
    Questionnaire for Completion by Presidential Nominees........   113
    Additional Pre-Hearing Questions.............................   128
    Response from Brett M. Holmgren to Question for the Record 
      submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein......................   154

 
                      OPEN HEARING: NOMINATIONS OF



                         CHRISTOPHER C. FONZONE



                     TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE



                       OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF



                         NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE;



                                  AND



                           BRETT M. HOLMGREN



                   TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE



                     FOR INTELLIGENCE AND RESEARCH,



                        U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2021

                                       U.S. Senate,
                          Select Committee on Intelligence,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m., in 
Room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark R. Warner 
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Warner, Rubio, Feinstein, Wyden, 
Heinrich, King, Bennet, Casey, Gillibrand (via WebEx), Risch, 
Cotton, Cornyn, and Sasse.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK R. WARNER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 
                            VIRGINIA

    Chairman Warner. I'd like to call the Committee to order.
    Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to our nominees 
Christopher Fonzone and Brett Holmgren and welcome to your 
families here or watching from home.
    Congratulations on your respective nominations to serve as 
the General Counsel for the Office of the DNI and as Assistant 
Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research. These are 
both critically important positions in the Nation's 
Intelligence Community at a time of significant challenges and 
also opportunities for America.
    In a moment, I know we're going to be joined by our 
colleague, Senator Klobuchar, who will be introducing Mr. 
Holmgren.
    Gentlemen, you both have distinguished records as public 
servants in the fields of national security. Mr. Fonzone, who 
is currently in private practice, previously served as Deputy 
Assistant and Deputy Counsel to President Obama and legal 
adviser to the National Security Council. Before this, he was 
senior counsel to the General Counsel--that's a lot of 
counsels--of the Defense Department and also served in the 
Department of Justice.
    Mr. Fonzone, as General Counsel for the ODNI, you will 
advise the Director on the letter and spirit of the law, 
including the legal obligation to keep this Committee fully and 
currently informed on all key intelligence matters, while 
ensuring that the civil liberties and privacy interests of all 
Americans are protected.
    As we've seen in recent years, this position carries with 
it the responsibility to make some tough calls. To do so you 
will need the judgment and ethical compass to make the right 
decisions, even in the face of political or policy pressure.
    In recent years, we've seen patriotic individuals who have 
come forward as whistleblowers sidelined, fired, or even 
retaliated against; and I would like to hear your thoughts on 
how you will work to ensure that such IC whistleblowers are 
protected going forward, regardless of who is in the White 
House.
    Specifically, I'd like to hear your thoughts on whether 
there are any circumstances where it would be appropriate for a 
General Counsel to intercede to prevent a whistleblower 
complaint from going to Congress.
    More broadly, after four years during which the expertise 
and judgment of American civil servants and intelligence 
professionals were at times discounted, belittled, or outright 
ignored, I'd like to hear your thoughts on what you will do to 
help restore the morale and install the utmost level of 
integrity in the IC workforce.
    Turning to Mr. Holmgren. Brett Holmgren also has an 
impressive resume, having been Special Assistant to the 
President and senior director for Intelligence Programs at NSC. 
Before this, he was senior policy adviser to the assistant to 
the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and 
special assistant to the deputy secretary of Defense.
    If confirmed, Mr. Holmgren, you will be inheriting a long 
institutional history at the State Department's Bureau of 
Intelligence and Research. INR's well-deserved reputation for 
not bending to political pressure was cemented by its famous 
dissent to the IC's assessment of whether or not Saddam Hussein 
possessed WMDs.
    INR assessed he did not, stuck to their guns, wouldn't 
budge, despite the immense pressure and they were ultimately 
proven correct. INR's stance has become a model for all 
intelligence analysts.
    Whether it's China, Russia, North Korea, or the global 
pandemic, our alliances will be vital to confronting the many 
challenges we face around the globe. Our Foreign Service 
officers, ambassadors, and the Secretary of State all rely on 
the INR to provide them with the best intelligence assessments 
to help them understand the world and advance American 
diplomacy and foreign policy.
    Should you be confirmed, fulfilling this Committee's 
oversight obligation to require transparency and responsiveness 
from both of you, we may ask you and your staff difficult 
questions from time to time and we expect honest, complete, and 
timely answers. But we also encourage you to come to the 
Committee when our partnership is needed. You can always count 
on us to hear you out, treat you fairly, usually without 
partisanships we sometimes see elsewhere.
    One concrete example of this partnership, Mr. Fonzone, will 
be in examining and eventually reauthorizing critical FISA 
authorities that are set to expire in 2023. This is an area 
where early engagement with Congress and this Committee will be 
extremely important.
    Now, after the Vice Chairman and I give our opening 
statements, Senator Klobuchar, who I think will shortly be 
here, will say a few words and our witnesses will then give 
their statements. After this, Member questions will be for five 
minutes in order of seniority at the gavel.
    Thank you again for agreeing to step forward to serve our 
country. I look forward to your testimony and I now recognize 
the distinguished Vice Chairman.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 
                            FLORIDA

    Vice Chairman Rubio. Thank you. And I join the Chairman in 
welcoming both of you today to the hearing. Mr. Fonzone, Mr. 
Holmgren: Congratulations on your nomination and thank you for 
your willingness to serve.
    Mr. Fonzone, the General Counsel of the Office of Director 
of National Intelligence has to make sure that the Intelligence 
Community, together with the Department of Justice, have the 
authorities and the capabilities anytime to take collection and 
surveillance that is critical to our national security. So we 
look forward to hearing in your testimony how you will provide 
the sound legal counsel to the intelligence agencies and 
community on those important issues.
    Importantly, I note that in your prior written responses 
and communications with our Committee, you disclosed past work 
that you performed on your law firm's behalf for the Ministry 
of Commerce of the People's Republic of China and for Huawei 
Technologies. I appreciate your candidness in reporting this 
and the details you provided us. I expect that I, or maybe some 
of our Members, as I told you personally, will follow-up with 
some questions in that regard.
    Mr. Holmgren, our Committee trusts that the State 
Department intelligence element has a leader who engages with 
the Intelligence Community's ongoing and substantive work. 
Collaboration is important to assess and focus on the threats 
facing our Nation. And we expect the Assistant Secretary of 
State for Intelligence and Research to take on that mandate 
from day one and to keep this Committee fully informed.
    I hope with the significant changes announced at U.S. 
Embassy Moscow, the Department of State will work in earnest to 
reduce counterintelligence risks at the Embassy and to work to 
achieve reciprocity in visas. And with no excuses, moving 
forward, like we have seen in the past.
    Our hearing today comes at a time when the threats from 
China, from Russia, from Iran, from North Korea, and global 
terrorism are complex and at times divisive. And our hope is 
that your testimony will describe how you will ensure that, if 
confirmed, you will provide the leadership, integrity, and 
impeccable judgment to lead your respective Intelligence 
Community components.
    We also want to hear from you as to how you will be 
responsive to our Committee's inquiries and requests and how 
you will support our oversight obligation. So we have a lot of 
issues to cover today. I want each of our Members to have the 
opportunity to ask their questions. And I look forward to 
today's conversation.
    Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. I think we will go ahead and administer 
the oath at this moment and then when Senator Klobuchar comes 
she will deliver an introduction.
    Will the witnesses please stand and raise their right hand?
    Do you solemnly swear to give this Committee the truth, the 
full truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Holmgren. I do.
    Mr. Fonzone. I do.
    Chairman Warner. Please be seated.
    The Committee poses five questions to each nominee who 
appears before us. They just require a simple yes or no answer 
for the record. And we can do this, I believe, jointly, unless 
there was disagreement on the answers.
    First question, do you agree to appear before the Committee 
here or in other venues when invited?
    Mr. Fonzone. Yes.
    Mr. Holmgren. Yes.
    Chairman Warner. If confirmed, do you agree to send 
officials from your office to appear before the Committee and 
designated staff when invited?
    Mr. Fonzone. Yes.
    Mr. Holmgren. Yes.
    Chairman Warner. Do you agree to provide documents or any 
other materials requested by the Committee in order for it to 
carry out its oversight and legislative responsibilities?
    Mr. Fonzone. Yes.
    Mr. Holmgren. Yes.
    Chairman Warner. Will you ensure that your office and your 
staff provides such material to the Committee when requested?
    Mr. Fonzone. Yes.
    Mr. Holmgren. Yes.
    Chairman Warner. Do you agree to inform and fully brief to 
the fullest extent possible all Members of this Committee on 
intelligence activities and covert actions rather than only the 
Chairman and the Vice Chairman?
    Mr. Fonzone. Yes.
    Mr. Holmgren. Yes.
    Chairman Warner. So far you guys are doing pretty well.
    I was going to turn to your opening statements but luckily, 
with impeccable timing, our colleague, Senator Klobuchar from 
Minnesota, has arrived to introduce one of the nominees,
    Senator Klobuchar, welcome.

 STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, A U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

    Senator Klobuchar. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 
and thank you to Vice Chairman Rubio as well and distinguished 
Members of this Committee.
    I am glad to be here to introduce a friend and a fellow 
Minnesotan, Brett Holmgren, as President Biden's nominee to be 
Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research. 
Because of the pandemic, Brett's family is unable to join us in 
person but his parents, Mike, and Mary; and his siblings, Ryan, 
Krista, and Stacie are all back in Minnesota and I know are 
waving at him right now. While they can't be here, I know that 
they are probably supporting Brett back from our home state.
    Brett grew up in Blaine, where he was raised by parents who 
showed him the value of public service from a young age. For 
nearly 40 years, his mom taught at Coon Rapids High School, and 
his dad worked as a teacher and administrator in the Mounds 
Public Schools. My mom was a public teacher, too, so I know 
from experience that teachers raise their kids with a drive to 
always do better, a drive that has stuck with Brett through his 
years working in national security.
    He embodies our Minnesota values of hard work and service 
that we need in our leaders. Those values came to the forefront 
on       9/11, which Brad has said was a life changing moment 
for him. As our Nation grappled with the grief, and the shock, 
and the disbelief, like so many in his generation, Brett felt 
the call to service.
    After graduating from the University of Wisconsin Madison, 
he joined the Defense Intelligence Agency as a counterterrorism 
analyst and later went on to become a senior analyst at the 
CIA. His work helped to disrupt plots against American 
interests around the world and to degrade al-Qaeda.
    He served in war zones and provided support to the military 
and intelligence operations. He understands how intelligence 
informs and supports our military, policymakers, and diplomats.
    After eight years in the Intelligence Community, he went on 
to serve in policy roles at the Pentagon and the White House, 
where he held the most senior intelligence position on the 
National Security Council staff as special assistant to the 
President and senior director for Intelligence Programs. In 
those roles he managed and provided leadership on some of the 
most pressing national security issues, from cyber technology 
to covert action and counterintelligence.
    He also learned from incredible leaders, like Deputy 
Attorney General Lisa Monaco, who embodies the integrity 
Americans deserve. Brett has said that she taught him how to 
lead with humility and showed him the importance of staying 
calm under pressure, both qualities will serve him well as 
Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research.
    Brett's accomplishments have earned him several 
recognitions including the Secretary of Defense Meritorious 
Civilian Service Award, the Director of National Intelligence 
Superior Service Award, and the CIA Hostile Actions Service 
Medal.
    In every conversation I've had with him, he has 
demonstrated a deep understanding of the role of the Intel 
Community and the importance of Congressional oversight. I know 
he will be able to offer the State Department both his 
expertise and an abiding commitment to speaking truth to power, 
a commitment that has defined his career.
    His experiences, judgment, and integrity will be in value, 
both to the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the State 
Department, the Intel Community, and most importantly, the 
American people. I'm confident you will see those qualities 
over the course of this hearing, and I urge the Committee to 
support his nomination.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar, for a very 
strong endorsement and introduction. And I know you've got to 
go deal with our Canadian friends so the Committee will excuse 
you.
    We'll now move to our witnesses. I believe, Mr. Fonzone, I 
think you were scheduled to go first.

  STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER C. FONZONE, NOMINEE TO BE GENERAL 
COUNSEL FOR THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE

    Mr. Fonzone. Thank you Chairman Warner, Vice Chairman 
Rubio, and Members of the Committee, it's an honor to appear 
before you today as President Biden's nominee to be the General 
Counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. 
Thank you for taking the time to consider my nomination.
    I'm only here today because of the efforts of others. My 
parents, Charles and Mary Ann Fonzone, are watching today's 
proceedings from home in Allentown, Pennsylvania--probably 
pretty nervously. They instilled in me and my brother Steve 
from a young age the importance of working hard and always 
trying to do the right thing, and I think often of their 
guidance. My wife Jill is here today and I can't thank her 
enough for her love, counsel, and patience, and for always 
being able to make me smile. Her support and encouragement--
even though she already knows what it is like to be married to 
someone who works in a SCIF--is one of the main reasons I am 
prepared to undertake this challenging role.
    I'm also very thankful to President Biden and Director 
Haines for placing their confidence in me. The Intelligence 
Community plays a vital role in keeping the Nation safe, but it 
can only operate effectively if the American people have 
confidence that its activities are lawful and consistent with 
the Nation's values. If confirmed, I pledge to do all I can to 
assist Director Haines in leading an Intelligence Community 
that earns the American people's trust. I know this is a 
serious and important responsibility. Legal advice provided in 
Washington can have far-reaching effects, including for 
Intelligence Community personnel doing dangerous and difficult 
jobs far away from headquarters. If confirmed, I would thus 
strive to provide advice that not only ensures the Intelligence 
Community carries out its important mission consistent with the 
law, but also is mindful of context and useful to the 
recipient. In short, my goal would be to work with the 
dedicated and talented career lawyers in the General Counsel's 
Office to be a partner to the Director and to all ODNI 
employees, providing them with timely, practical, and sound 
counsel on the issues and challenges they face, while remaining 
unafraid to deliver tough advice, when necessary.
    Another key focus of mine, if confirmed, would be to 
maintain an effective working relationship with the Congress--
and this Committee, in particular. Under the Constitution, the 
institutions of our government are ultimately accountable to 
the American people. For this reason, I think the Intelligence 
Community should be as transparent as it can be about the legal 
basis for its activities. But much of the Intelligence 
Community's work is necessarily secret, and it is therefore 
crucial for Congress to have the information it needs to 
exercise its oversight functions, particularly with respect to 
legal matters. If confirmed, I would thus endeavor to be a 
partner to this Committee and maintain open lines of 
communication on the range of legal issues that may arise 
during my tenure.
    Finally, if confirmed, I would also look forward to working 
with lawyers from across the Intelligence Community. National 
security lawyers often have to confront novel questions for 
which traditional legal sources do not provide clear answers. 
In those cases, collaboration can be extremely helpful, and 
cooperation between Intelligence Community components can also 
help ensure that the Community's equities are presented 
effectively in interagency legal discussions.
    I recognize that there is probably no job with a mix of 
responsibilities identical to the ODNI General Counsel's. But 
I've been fortunate during my legal career to have had a number 
of roles--clerking at the Departments of Justice and Defense, 
at the National Security Council, and in private practice--that 
I believe provide useful experience.
    This experience also teaches me how special it is to serve 
one's country. Put simply, there's a sense of mission and 
purpose in working for the government that you simply can't 
replicate anywhere else. I also know how lucky you have to be 
and how many things have to break right to have the opportunity 
to serve in a role like the one for which I've been nominated. 
That's why, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, and Members of the 
Committee, I can commit to you that, if afforded the 
opportunity to serve, I will do everything in my power to carry 
out this important office to the best of my ability; to be an 
effective counselor to and advocate for the Intelligence 
Community; to be a partner to this Committee; and to be an 
effective steward of the public's trust.
    Thank you again for your consideration of my nomination, 
and I look forward to your questions.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Fonzone.
    Mr. Holmgren.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Fonzone follows:]


    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    STATEMENT OF BRETT M. HOLMGREN, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT 
    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INTELLIGENCE AND RESEARCH, U.S. 
                      DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Mr. Holmgren. Chairman Warner, Vice Chairman Rubio, and 
Members of the Committee: It is an honor to appear before you 
today as the nominee to be Assistant Secretary of State for the 
Bureau of Intelligence and Research. I am deeply grateful to 
President Biden and Secretary Blinken for the confidence they 
have placed in me, and to Director of National Intelligence 
Avril Haines for supporting my nomination. I also want to thank 
Senator Klobuchar for leadership in the Senate, for her kind 
words, and for supporting me today.
    I'm excited to be here alongside my friend and colleague 
Chris Fonzone. I worked closely with Chris when we served 
together on the National Security Council staff, and I can 
attest that while he is an exceptional lawyer, he's an even 
better colleague and human being.
    I would not be here today if it were not for the love and 
support of my family: my wife, Dana; our son Teddy; my parents, 
Michael and Mary; and my siblings Stacie, Krista, and Ryan. 
Each of them has inspired me to live my life with a sense of 
purpose, love, and humility.
    Like many Americans of my generation, the tragic events of   
    9/11 were a turning point in my life. I left my home State 
of Minnesota 18 years ago to pursue a career in public service 
to defend the freedoms, values, and liberties that we all 
cherish. I came to Washington with a sense of optimism and a 
deep and abiding belief in the ideals of this country: that 
America is a force for good in the world, and that all men and 
women are created equal with the right to life, liberty, and 
the pursuit of happiness.
    These ideals derive from my upbringing in Minnesota, where 
I was surrounded by family who believed deeply in the role of 
service. Both of my grandfathers were World War II veterans. My 
parents, both of whom were public school teachers for 40 years, 
instilled in me and my siblings the importance of service. And 
I still share that same sense of optimism and commitment to 
public service that I brought with me to Washington nearly two 
decades ago.
    While I may be a new face to the Committee, I have a long 
track record of working with the Intelligence Community. As an 
analyst, first at the Defense Intelligence Agency and later at 
Central Intelligence Agency, I authored all-source intelligence 
products to inform policy decisions. Through deployments 
overseas, including in warzones, I have seen firsthand the key 
role that intelligence plays in shaping national security and 
the tremendous sacrifices of our warfighters, diplomats, and 
intelligence officers. Throughout my career, I have also served 
in policy roles at the Pentagon and on the National Security 
Council staff at the White House. These experiences gave me a 
richer understanding of the vital role and the limitations of 
intelligence in shaping policy. Most significantly, I gained, 
through these experiences, a greater appreciation for the 
importance of analytic objectivity and the need for the 
Intelligence Community to tell the policymaker what they need 
to know, and not what they want to hear.
    I have been nominated for this position at a time when the 
United States and its allies are facing a diverse, 
interconnected array of threats against the backdrop of a 
global pandemic that is straining governments and societies, 
fueling unrest, and accelerating global competition. From 
China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea the continuing threat of 
terrorism, cyber, and evolving technologies, these threats pose 
new challenges and opportunities for the Intelligence 
Community.
    Mr. Chairman, I believe INR has a unique role to play in 
addressing these challenges. As the oldest civilian 
intelligence agency in the United States, the Bureau has a long 
and proud history of providing policymakers with valuable 
insights into America's most pressing national security issues, 
while empowering our diplomats with the information and 
analysis they need to advance US foreign policy objectives.
    If confirmed, I look forward to leading this remarkable 
institution. I understand the role comes with important 
responsibilities: serving as the principal intelligence advisor 
to the Secretary of State and as the head of one of the 
Nation's 18 intelligence agencies; providing timely, objective, 
all-source analysis to inform consideration of foreign and 
national security policies; and assuring that our intelligence 
and sensitive law enforcement activities are consistent with, 
and supportive of, U.S. foreign policy objectives.
    If confirmed, four interrelated imperatives will shape my 
approach to leading INR.
    First, I will ensure that INR's capabilities and resources 
are aligned and strategically prioritized to address the most 
pressing challenges and opportunities, to include China, Iran, 
Russia, North Korea, global health security, cyber, the impact 
of climate change, and how to capitalize on the revolution in 
open-source intelligence.
    Second, I will prioritize investments in INR's greatest 
asset--its people. We must continue to attract, train, and 
retain top talent while placing greater emphasis on diversity 
and inclusion.
    Third, I will focus on upgrading INR's technology 
infrastructure to empower the analysts with the tools they need 
and to improve the delivery of INR's products and services to 
better support its customers, namely, U.S. diplomats overseas.
    Finally, I will insist on strong cybersecurity practices 
throughout INR to safeguard the confidentiality, integrity, and 
availability of its data, networks, and systems.
    In closing, I want to recognize the important role that I 
believe congressional oversight plays in ensuring that US 
intelligence activities are lawful, ethical, and consistent 
with our values. If confirmed, I very much look forward to 
partnering with this Committee as we confront the many 
challenges ahead.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Holmgren follows:]
    
    

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Chairman Warner. Well, thank you, gentlemen.
    For planning purposes, any Members of the Committee wishing 
to submit questions for the record after today's hearing, 
please do so by 5 p.m. on this coming Thursday, May 20th.
    The Chair and the Vice Chair will ask questions and we'll 
have who came in at the gavel and then we'll go back and forth 
based on order of arrival for five minute rounds.
    Mr. Fonzone, I mean, we've seen some real challenges at 
ODNI over the last couple years. I think Director Haines, I'm 
encouraged by her early steps. What are you going to be able to 
do and how can you help her efforts to restore the morale and 
return that sense of integrity to the Office at ODNI and how do 
we make sure that the analysis of law is free from any 
political influence in the ODNI?
    Mr. Fonzone. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
    Making sure that the ODNI is a place where employees want 
to work and that can deliver--that can say truth to power is, I 
think, a fundamental part of the job of the General Counsel. 
And I think there's a number of ways in which I would see doing 
that.
    One is I would want to, if confirmed, engage with the 
General Counsel's Office and make sure they have everything 
they need and that they feel supported by their General Counsel 
so they can deliver clear and accurate legal advice to everyone 
in the department.
    I think the second thing I would want to make sure to do is 
that everyone--ensuring that all ODNI employees understand how, 
if they have any concerns about their legal advice or any 
politicization of the analysis they're providing, that they 
understand the channels that they can use to raise those 
concerns, whether that be through their chains of command to 
the ombudsman or the inspector general.
    And then third, I think dissent is healthy in organizations 
and I'd want to make sure that all people who do raise concerns 
would be able to do so without fear of retaliation.
    Chairman Warner. Let me do one more follow-up question then 
I'll move to Mr. Holmgren.
    One of the things we experienced, unfortunately, in the 
last couple of years was perhaps an unwillingness at the ODNI 
level and at the Legal Office of the ODNI to make sure that 
whistleblowers had the ability to exercise their, I believe, 
legal rights to get a report to Congress. Can you speak to us 
for a moment about the importance of whistleblowers and making 
sure their rights are protected?
    Mr. Fonzone. Sure, Senator.
    Whistleblowers play an integral part in any organization, 
and particularly, the Intelligence Community where so much of 
the work is secret and dissent has to come internally.
    I know that Director Haines said during her confirmation 
process that if the ICIG presented a whistleblower complaint on 
a matter of urgent concern to her, she would transmit it to 
this Committee and I would, obviously, support her in doing 
that.
    And more broadly, I would want to do two things, one is 
making sure all ODNI employees, and to extent relevant, broader 
IC employees, understand how they can raise complaints that 
they have to the Inspector General or other places where they 
can raise such complaints. And two, making sure that they're 
free from retaliation if they do so and that they're protected 
to the full extent of the law if they do.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you.
    Mr. Holmgren, one of the issues that this Committee is 
really taken on is the challenges of China. And when we talk of 
China, we always make clear that our beef is with the Communist 
Party of China and the leadership of Xi Jinping, not the 
Chinese people.
    Matter of fact, there's a bill on the floor of the Senate 
right now where this Committee has made in a broad bipartisan 
way, I think, major commitments to investing in semiconductors 
and competing in the realm of 5G and the next generation, so-
called O-RAN.
    Can you speak to us for a moment about what you see is 
INR's role in informing the United States and the State 
Department policies to counter China's very aggressive 
tendencies in terms of technology competition?
    Mr. Holmgren. Yes. Thank you, Senator, for that question, 
and I know several of you raised this issue with me during the 
pre-hearing meetings.
    You know, first, I want to commend this Committee, in 
particular, for elevating the importance of the China and 
technology challenges and the risks that it poses, not only to 
our national security but also to our economic security and for 
American workers here in the United States. So I very much 
appreciate the issue. I think, you know, the Democracy 
Technology Partnership Act that several of you have brought 
forward, has great opportunities and ideas in there to 
implement.
    I think the important thing about China to understand is 
that their technology agenda underpins and drives their 
military and their economic ambitions. And so I think it's 
vitally important for the United States to out-compete China 
technologically in order to maintain our military and our 
economic edge. And if confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I commit to you 
that China will be an unparalleled priority for INR and that I 
will ensure we have the resources and the capabilities and the 
expertise to address that challenge.
    Chairman Warner. Well, thank you. And my time is expired. I 
just want to make one additional point. I won't ask for a 
response but one of the issues that this Committee is really 
also taken on in a very aggressive way recently, and again, 
appreciate everybody's input, is what's been referred to in the 
press as the so-called Havana Syndrome. And we've got a 
commitment from Director Burns, from the Agency, to make this a 
top priority. We'll expect that same kind of commitment from 
the INR and the State Department writ large.
    Senator Rubio.
    Vice Chairman Rubio. Thank you.
    Let me start with you, Mr. Fonzone because we've already 
talked about it and I told you I wanted to give you an 
opportunity to address this with the Committee as well.
    Look, I mean, you just heard Mr. Holmgren's answer but I 
think it reflects everyone else's view that, in fact, China 
uses its technological ambitions to further its military and 
global ambitions. And one of their national champions is 
Huawei, as an example and one of the things that we've all been 
focused on and one of the priorities that this country has had 
is ensuring that Huawei doesn't embed itself in the 
telecommunication infrastructure of this country and also of 
other countries.
    And so, obviously, you're going to get asked about the fact 
that as a partner at a law firm that represented both the 
Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China and 
Huawei. You know, I understand that your position is that the 
work you did on this file was ``de minimis'' but I think the 
question is really, you know, as you worked in the National 
Security Council, so you were surely aware of the threat posed 
by China to American interests.
    And I think the reason why it becomes relevant is because 
one of things we've seen is how the Chinese Communist Party 
uses our own system against us, in essence, it uses powerful 
law firms and other entities in Washington with lawyers that 
are connected to go in and out of government to advance their 
objective, be it in court or in the lobbying realm.
    So I wanted to give you an opportunity to sort of address 
sort of the work you did, what were the options you have 
available to you at the time, and how that fits into the role 
that you've now been nominated to assume or not be relevant to 
it at all. But I thought it was important both to address it to 
give you a chance to address it because I think you could 
understand, seeing that there's going to be some questions 
coming about that.
    Mr. Fonzone. Senator Rubio, thank you for the question. I 
appreciate the opportunity to address the China-related work I 
did at my law firm. As I know that this is an issue of great 
interest this Committee.
    I think there are, as you mentioned, two clients that have 
raised the most questions as I've gone through the pre-hearing 
process. The first is the Chinese Ministry of Commerce. The 
work I did there was, as senior partner of my firm, arguing on 
behalf of the Ministry in the Supreme Court. It was a 
commercial dispute about how foreign law is incorporated into 
U.S. law, U.S. antitrust law.
    I was asked to prepare for and then participate in a moot 
court to prepare the advocates for the argument and I did that 
to help make sure that the partner or firm was able to give the 
court the information it needs to decide the case. And I've had 
no follow-up on that since then.
    The second representation, as you mentioned, was for Huawei 
and it was similar in the sense that the firm asked me to look 
into a question of how U.S. law works. I did a ``de minimis'' 
amount of work, less than 10 hours, to explain how U.S. 
administrative law works. I provided it to my partners and I've 
had no follow-up since then. Both of those occurred in 2018.
    I don't think either of those representations, which were 
consistent with my entire legal practice, which was largely 
around helping companies understand and comply with U.S. law, 
would affect my ability to give Director Haines objective 
advice as she serves as the DNI.
    Vice Chairman Rubio. Just to clarify, on the Ministry of 
Commerce you helped prepare a partner for oral arguments, in 
essence, a moot court practice situation. And on the Huawei 
representation, you provided internal legal research on how 
U.S. administrative law works.
    Mr. Fonzone. That's correct, Senator.
    Vice Chairman Rubio. Okay.
    I'm sure there will be more follow-up but I don't want to 
take all of our time on that. I know other Members may want to 
dig into a little bit deeper. I didn't want to skip going to 
Mr. Holmgren.
    Foreign misinformation, informational warfare is a reality. 
It's growing. It's always been there but we've now seen it sort 
of diffuse and become a real weapon used in global competition.
    What is or should be, through the Global Engagement Center, 
the INR's role in supporting the Global Engagement Center 
efforts? In essence, you know, how can we counter through the 
Global Engagement Center the impact that disinformation and 
misinformation campaigns are having, not just people think of 
Russia, I mean, Iran and others are heavily engaged now in this 
effort in the Western Hemisphere even. So how do you view the 
role of the Global Engagement Center and your role, in 
particular, in supporting those efforts?
    Mr. Fonzone. Thank you, Vice Chairman, for that important 
question.
    Russia's interference in the 2016, you know, election was 
an outrageous attack on our democracy. It was an attempt to sow 
discord, to exacerbate divisions in our country, and it is an 
effort, as the DNI has indicated, it's likely to be, you know, 
replicated by other Nations besides Russia moving forward. And 
so I think it absolutely is a serious issue that we must 
confront. You know, I publicly called for the need for a whole 
of government approach to combat foreign malign disinformation 
and influence campaigns.
    And so, Vice Chairman, to your question about the role that 
State and INR, in particular, would play, I would view, if 
confirmed, INR's role as providing support to the Global 
Engagement Center, but also to the recently established Foreign 
Malign Influence Center that the DNI created, which I think is 
a very positive step in the right direction to fuse a lot of 
the intelligence and threat information to share with 
policymakers.
    Chairman Warner. We'll now go to those Members who were 
here at the gavel, which is Senator Casey and Senator Cornyn. 
Senator Casey and then Senator Cornyn.
    Senator Casey. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much.
    I want to start by commending both of the nominees for your 
willingness to serve the country again. Both Mr. Fonzone and 
Mr. Holmgren are committing to further service and that's 
laudable, especially at this time.
    Mr. Fonzone, I wanted to highlight your Pennsylvania roots, 
as well as your pride in growing up in the Lehigh Valley. You 
told me earlier you're a graduate of Parkland High School, is 
that correct? And then on to Cornell and Harvard Law School? So 
we want to note that for the record.
    And I want to say hello to your parents from a distance. I 
don't know them. I won't wave to them; that probably is a 
little too much. But I want to thank them for raising you and I 
also want to commend your family, your wife, Jill, who I guess 
is here. Jill. Good to see you. And your family's commitment to 
public service.
    I wanted to start with you and I'll try to get to both of 
our nominees for a question each.
    The question relates to supply chain concerns that I have 
and I know a lot of people have, specifically as it relates to 
China. I don't think there's any question right now that the 
United States has capital investments that have the effect of, 
in a very real sense, propping up China's governmental effort 
to create a military-civil fusion strategy that ultimately can 
compromise U.S. national security.
    We've had for more than 40 years now the so-called CFIUS 
process, the Committee on Foreign Investment, which scrutinizes 
inbound investment. We don't have a similar or comparable 
method to analyze outbound investment for the same questions. 
So no mechanism to assess how outsourcing by U.S. companies to 
countries of concern may compromise our national security.
    So I guess my first question is, in your view, how 
vulnerable is the United States supply chain to dependencies on 
China?
    Mr. Fonzone. Thank you, Senator, for the question and your 
focus on this issue. It's an important one. Supply chain is an 
issue of focus for this Committee and also the Intelligence 
Community writ large.
    And I think that outbound investment is something that 
probably we should take a closer look at. Obviously, I'm not in 
government now so I don't have the latest intelligence on 
exactly what the risks are. I think what I can say is that, if 
confirmed, I would commit to engaging with experts on this 
issue in the Intelligence Community, at DNI specifically, and 
in the Intelligence Community more broadly.
    And then offering up my help and the help of my office, 
working with you or the Committee on any proposals you would 
have to address the threat raised by China and others with 
respect to supply chains.
    Senator Casey. I appreciate that. I look forward to working 
with you. I hope we can help you by way of some new legislation 
in this area, we hope, as well as to review with you some of 
the legal tools that ODNI might have to track outbound 
investment by companies that compromise our security.
    Mr. Holmgren, the ``Quad'' intelligence sharing partnership 
between the United States, Australia, India, and Japan is 
emerging as an essential tool to combating Chinese aggression 
in the Indo-Pacific region. My question for you is about 
diplomacy. What role can diplomacy play in getting access to 
critical intelligence regarding China's trade, diplomatic, and 
military agendas?
    Mr. Holmgren. Thank you, Senator, for that question. And as 
I indicated previously, I share the concerns about the serious 
threat China poses to the United States militarily, 
economically, and technologically.
    Working with our intelligence partners and allies is a 
vital function in the Intelligence Community generally, but 
especially at a place like the Department of State where 
diplomacy is the business. INR serves at the intersection of 
intelligence and diplomacy and so, if confirmed, I would view 
INR's role as supporting engagements of our diplomats, to 
include the Secretary of State, with those partners with the 
intelligence that they need.
    And second, to make sure that we are including those 
partners that you mentioned--in particular our closest allies, 
as well as the Five Eye countries--in the analytic exchanges 
that INR leads on behalf of the Intelligence Community. They're 
a couple hundred a year, where you bring in outside experts, 
non-governmental experts, to focus on particular issues. So I 
think ensuring that those partners and allies were included 
would be an important step to help strengthen those 
relationships.
    Senator Casey. Thanks very much. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Senator Cornyn.
    Senator Cornyn. Let me start by thanking both of you for 
your willingness to serve and for your willingness to take a 
cut in pay.
    In all seriousness, Mr. Fonzone, you and I had a chance to 
visit about some issues in my office and I thank you for that.
    I note that Sidley Austin has registered different times 
for representing clients in the Foreign Agents Registration 
Act. Have you personally had to register under FARA?
    Mr. Fonzone. No, I have not personally registered. I think 
the firm, in one of its periodic registrations, lists all the 
partners who were in the firm, but I have not registered 
personally.
    Senator Cornyn. Do share my concern about foreign 
governments hiring lobbyists on K Street with the lack of any 
real transparency, so that, basically, people like the Members 
of this Committee don't know if they're being lobbied by 
American citizens or by foreign governments?
    Mr. Fonzone. Senator, I certainly think that Congress 
should understand who's asking you to do things. And I can't 
profess to be an expert on how exactly FARA works, but I think 
to the extent that there are changes, if you don't feel you're 
getting the disclosures needed I'd be happy to, if confirmed, 
work with you on making sure you get the information you need.
    Senator Cornyn. Well, once you're on the job, I hope you'll 
work with us to try to figure this out. They have various 
disclosure registrations called the Lobbyist Disclosure Act, 
which then eliminates the need to register as a foreign agent. 
But I think this is a big concern to a number of us on this 
Committee and in Congress. And so I hope you'll help us work 
through that.
    I know President Biden asked the DNI to produce a threat 
assessment on domestic violent extremists. And we certainly 
recognize the importance of that. But in the United States, we 
don't allow the Intelligence Community to spy on American 
citizens, absent some proof of connection with a foreign 
power--being an agent of the foreign power.
    As you know, the FBI is the member of the Intelligence 
Community that basically is in charge of law enforcement and 
counterintelligence operations. But how do you draw the line 
between what is permissible and what's impermissible under our 
laws?
    Mr. Fonzone. Thank you, Senator, for raising this issue.
    As I've gone through the process of preparing for 
confirmation and talked to folks who held this job before--and 
others, I think this is one of the issues that would be a major 
focus if I were lucky enough to be confirmed. There are 
domestic threats and the government has a role to play in 
addressing them. But as you just noted, I think there's a lot 
of history that shows trouble can arise if the IC becomes too 
involved. I think the way that works out in practice is, as you 
noted, the FBI and DHS are in the lead. But as Director Haines 
noted in her confirmation process, there may be some small role 
the IC can play to support them.
    If confirmed, I can say that it would be a major focus of 
mine to make sure that the extent the IC is providing 
assistance in addressing any domestic threats, it does so 
consistent with its authorities and with due respect for the 
Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, and in particular their 
First Amendment rights to both assembly and speech.
    Senator Cornyn. As you know, China is usually the first 
word out of our mouths these days when it comes to our national 
security, economic and otherwise. In recent years, Congress has 
passed some reforms. For example, the CFIUS process, the 
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, to review 
foreign investments for national security concerns and the 
like.
    I know that it's been a couple of years now and that 
Treasury, I think, was primarily responsible for convening 
CFIUS, has not yet completed some of the rulemaking process. 
And I hope you will help us figure out what--not only how to 
implement what we've already passed into law, but what other 
loopholes are there available for our adversaries, primarily 
China, because we know where they're relentless.
    Do you have any sort of plenary thoughts about things that 
we need to do to make that more effective?
    Mr. Fonzone. Senator, I know that there were the amendments 
to CFIUS that were passed. I'm not completely up to speed on 
those types of implementation. If I was confirmed, I would 
obviously help--to the extent that the DNI General Counsel had 
a role to play there--to assist that.
    And in looking into this and understanding how it's been 
implemented, identified any gaps or areas where further 
legislation would be helpful to address national security 
threats. I would obviously work with this Committee to close 
those gaps.
    Senator Cornyn. Thank you.
    Chairman Warner. I'd remind the panel that the Senator from 
Texas was the lead Senator on that CFIUS reform.
    We're going to continue. It's, again, based upon arrival 
order, so Senator King, Senator Cotton, Senator Feinstein, and 
Senator Sasse.
    Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Holmgren, I can't imagine how difficult it would be to 
grow up in Minnesota in the nineties when your father's got the 
same name as the coach of the Green Bay Packers. That must have 
been a challenge at times.
    Mr. Holmgren. It was tough, Sir. Thanks--yes.
    [Laughter]
    Senator King. Character building, however.
    Mr. Holmgren. Indeed.
    Senator King. Mr. Holmgren, Dan Coats, I think, outlined 
best the role of the Intelligence Community. He said our job is 
to seek the truth and tell the truth. And one of the most 
important characteristics is sometimes it's hard to tell the 
truth if your customer doesn't want to hear the truth.
    Are you willing to incur the displeasure of the Secretary 
of State or indeed the President or this Committee in order to 
defend the findings of the analysts in INR?
    Mr. Holmgren. Thank you, Senator, for that important 
question. As Chairman Warner indicated at the top of his 
remarks, if confirmed, I would be joining an institution at INR 
that has a long and proud history of speaking truth to power.
    And so I feel as if I would be joining an institution 
that's on solid foundation in that regard. Having said that, I 
believe it is essential that the INR workforce, this Committee, 
the American people have confidence in the integrity, the 
accuracy, and the impartiality of Intelligence Community 
assessments.
    And so, if confirmed, I think it's a multi-pronged approach 
to ensure that policymakers are receiving the professional 
judgments and candid expertise of INR analysts.
    Senator King. If 2003 repeated itself and the consensus in 
the Intelligence Community was X and the finding of INR was Y, 
would you inform this Committee of your findings different from 
those of your colleagues in the community?
    Mr. Holmgren. Yes, Senator. I believe that would be a 
significant enough issue to inform the Committee.
    Senator King. Thank you. I hope we don't have to face that 
but I think that's an important part of your role. The most 
important. Intelligence, bad intelligence can lead--does lead--
to bad decisions. And your job is to give us the best 
intelligence that you have, us being policymakers.
    Mr. Fonzone, this Committee really, I think, has one role 
and one mission. The role is oversight of the Intelligence 
Community. And it's an unusual one because in a democracy, 
secret agencies are kind of an anomaly.
    And all the other agencies of government have all kinds of 
people looking at them: the press, the specialized press, the 
constituents. Intelligence not so much. So this Committee has 
an important responsibility. The mission it seems to me is 
navigating the tension between the preamble of the 
Constitution, to ensure domestic tranquility and provide for 
the common defense, and the First, Fourth, and Fifth 
Amendments, essentially the right of privacy of American 
citizens.
    Talk to me about how you navigate what is essentially a 
legal tension.
    Mr. Fonzone. Thank you, Senator. I think that's a fantastic 
framing of the role of this Committee and an excellent 
explanation for why the relationship between the Intelligence 
Community and this Committee is so important. I think that the 
Intelligence Community has a very important job to play in 
keeping the Nation safe, but it can only do that if the 
American people trust that what it's doing is lawful and 
consistent with the Nation's values.
    I think that because most of the work is in secret there 
has to be mechanisms to ensure people of that. I think one is 
that----
    Senator King. Especially because it's in secret.
    Mr. Fonzone. Especially because it's secret. And I think 
one is that the IC should be transparent as much as it can be. 
And if I was confirmed, I would be an advocate internally for 
being transparent about what the IC is doing, particularly 
about its legal basis.
    Two, there are internal oversight mechanisms to help make 
sure the IC is operating lawfully. There are Inspector 
Generals, there's the PCLOB, there are General Counsel offices.
    And third, and probably most important, there's this 
Committee. And if I were lucky enough to be confirmed, I would 
see a major focus in my role both ensuring that the Director 
carries out her obligation to keep the Committee fully and 
currently informed about significant intelligence activities, 
and also just making sure that I'm a partner with the Committee 
so that all the legal issues that come up that are 
significant--we're working together on those.
    Senator King. Hold that thought. Partner with the 
Committee. That's an important concept. I'm just about out of 
time, but I want to emphasize the importance, as the Chairman 
mentioned, of the whistleblower statute. By definition, 
whistleblowers are unpopular, certainly not within the 
executive branch. So they need articulate and aggressive 
defense. And I hope you will commit to doing so within the 
Intelligence Community.
    Mr. Fonzone. Certainly, Senator. That's something that a 
number of Senators have spoken to me about in the run up to 
this hearing. And I'm committed to, if confirmed, to ensuring 
that whistleblowers know where to lodge their complaints and 
receive the full protection of the law if they do so.
    Senator King. Interestingly, the first American 
whistleblower law was in 1778, prior to the adoption of the 
Constitution. The people that founded this country understood 
how important it was.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Senator Cotton.
    Senator Cotton. Thank you.
    Mr. Fonzone, I want to return to some of the topics about 
your legal work in private practice, specifically for the 
Ministry of Commerce in the People's Republic of China and for 
Huawei. You are a full equity partner at Sidley, is that 
correct?
    Mr. Fonzone. I did have some equity. I couldn't 
characterize myself as a full partner. But I was a partner.
    Senator Cotton. OK. Does Sidley have a policy to allow 
lawyers to decline work for clients if they find it morally 
objectionable?
    Mr. Fonzone. Senator, I took the work I did for the 
Ministry of Commerce and Huawei that I described for Senator 
Rubio. It was work that was consistent with my practice of 
helping companies understand U.S. law, comply with U.S. law, 
and or prepare for an argument--in that case, prepare for an 
argument before the Supreme Court.
    So I took it in that vein. That's why I took that work.
    Senator Cotton. So, I understand you took it but I'm asking 
you if Sidley has a policy that allows lawyers to decline work 
if they have objections to a client? I remember years ago firms 
would allow lawyers to decline work for tobacco companies, for 
instance, if they found that work morally objectionable.
    Mr. Fonzone. Senator, I don't know if there's an official 
policy to that end. I don't know if I would have been able to 
decline the work if I would have tried.
    Senator Cotton. Okay. Thank you.
    Just this morning the New York Times reported on Apple's 
years-long collaboration with the Chinese Communist Party to 
provide every piece of data from Apple's devices in China to 
Communist police forces, despite years, of course, of evidence 
of oppression and genocide. This is just one more example of 
Apple's deep, deep entanglement with the Chinese Communist 
Party. And you list in your disclosures Apple as one of your 
major clients.
    Could you please characterize the nature of the work you 
did for Apple?
    Mr. Fonzone. Senator, I did a range of work for Apple on a 
lot of topics. I don't recall doing anything vis-a-vis Apple 
with respect to its relationship with China, but I worked with 
them on a number of matters related to privacy and other 
topics.
    Senator Cotton. But you don't recall doing any work for 
Apple that was related to its relationship with China?
    Mr. Fonzone. Not that I recall, though I did a fair amount 
of work with them over the years so I--.
    Senator Cotton. Thank you. Thank you. I'll just say, 
obviously, the Committee has concerns about what's come to be 
known as the China lobby. And it's pervasive in this country, 
far more pervasive than these clients you've had. And I don't 
just mean registered agents for a Chinese company. It's 
everywhere. Multi-national corporations or small manufacturers 
in all our states have outsourced production to China.
    The CEOs of major investment banks met with China's trade 
negotiator right before he met with President Trump's trade 
negotiator. Hollywood won't have movies with Chinese bad guys 
because they want access to the Chinese market. University 
presidents will lobby us to maintain the flow of Chinese 
students who pay full fare at their universities. University 
professors still want to get money from Chinese-owned entities.
    So this is a very, very serious concern of the Committee 
and I think this is why you have Members asking you questions 
about the nature of this work.
    Mr. Holmgren, I want to turn to question what we discussed 
in our conversation a couple weeks ago. Nord Stream 2, which 
is, I'd say, right now Vladimir Putin's number-one foreign 
policy priority to complete. It's in the final stages of its 
construction. It will be completed later this year if nothing 
happens. It will make Western Europe even more dependent on 
Russian gas while also depriving Eastern European NATO allies 
of the concessions they get for the pipelines that come from 
Russia to Western Europe.
    Last year's defense bill greatly expanded the scope of 
companies subject to sanctions for supporting this pipeline. I 
understand the State Department has contacted some of these 
companies to make them aware of their potential sanctions 
exposure. If you're confirmed, can you commit to immediately 
providing the Senate with the unclassified list of companies 
involved in that project that the IC produced in response to 
last year's National Defense Authorization Act?
    Mr. Holmgren. Thank you, Senator Cotton. And I appreciate 
our conversation on this issue. Just let me say at the outset I 
am under no illusion that this pipeline is an economic 
development project as Putin claims. I believe that it is the 
latest example of Putin's desire to weaken Western alliances 
and ultimately, as you indicated, to exert influence down the 
road on our European partners and allies.
    So I appreciate the seriousness of this issue. If 
confirmed, I commit to you that INR will support the Department 
and the Intelligence Community in identifying and assessing and 
evaluating entities that may be involved in violating U.S.-
imposed sanctions. You have my commitment in that regard.
    Senator Cotton. Thank you. Ultimately, this is not going to 
be your call. It's going to be the Secretary's call. And really 
President Biden's call.
    I've seen troubling reports today that the Administration 
may be preparing to waive sanctions on certain German entities. 
So we'd be in the very strange position where we're sanctioning 
the company that's trying to build the pipeline but we're not 
going to sanction the company that's in charge of it or the 
company that's going to be using it--all because we want to 
maintain friendly relationships with Germany, which is 
currently throwing our Eastern European allies under the bus 
over this pipeline. So it's a matter of serious concern to the 
Committee.
    Chairman Warner. I would remind the Senator, and I agreed 
with your comments about Apple and some of the others, the one 
industry that refused to meet with this Committee when we were 
doing our China classified road shows was private equity, which 
was again, I think it----
    Senator Cotton. There's basically no industry and no place, 
no organization in America that's not potentially compromised 
by the China lobby. That's why it's so important that we do the 
work to expose the China lobby.
    Chairman Warner. Senator Feinstein.
    Senator Feinstein. Over a decade ago, the CIA engaged in 
the use of waterboarding and other so-called enhanced 
interrogation techniques during interrogations. The tactics 
used were not only more brutal than what's known, they did not 
produce actionable intelligence. This was all laid out in a 
Senate Intelligence Committee's 6,000-plus-page classified 
report and a 500-page declassified summary.
    While you both provided straightforward answers in the pre-
hearing questions, I want to cover this topic because I believe 
it remains a very high priority to see that we never return to 
this. So let me ask you the same questions I asked Director 
Haines and Director Burns when they were before us.
    Do you agree that current law prohibits any interrogation 
techniques not allowed by the U.S. Army Field Manual on 
Interrogation?
    Mr. Fonzone. I do, Senator.
    Mr. Holmgren. Yes.
    Senator Feinstein. Do you agree that waterboarding and 
other so-called enhanced interrogation techniques are not 
effective?
    Mr. Holmgren. Yes.
    Mr. Fonzone. Yes.
    Senator Feinstein. Will you assure us that the IC will not 
be in the business of running undeclared black site detention 
facilities or engaging in interrogations that use techniques 
beyond those listed in the Army Field Manual?
    Mr. Fonzone. Yes.
    Mr. Holmgren. Yes.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Senator Sasse and then Senator Wyden.
    Senator Sasse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not showing a 
light, do you hear me? Great. Thanks. Thank you both for being 
here. Congratulations on your nomination.
    Mr. Fonzone, I'd like to go back to the conversation that 
Vice Chairman Rubio started with, and that you and I discussed 
on the phone.
    Can you explain to me who Huawei is?
    Do you regard them as a private sector company?
    And what do you think of the role that they've played in 
the Chinese Communist Party's genocide in Xinjiang?
    Mr. Fonzone. Thank you, Senator, for the question. And I 
know this--we discussed this before the hearing--I'm well aware 
of what Director Haines has said about Huawei, about the fact 
that Chinese telecommunication companies pose a significant 
counterintelligence risk and she specifically named Huawei. I'm 
also aware of the amount of focus this Committee has placed on 
the risks posed by Huawei.
    If confirmed, I would obviously have access to the way this 
intelligence, including about Xinjiang--and that would be what 
would guide the factual underpinning of any legal analysis I 
would provide to Director Haines if I was lucky enough to be 
confirmed.
    Senator Sasse. But I'm trying to ask a different question. 
I'm trying to ask why would you make a decision to work for 
Huawei given who they are? And this isn't new news. You worked 
in the NSC in the Obama years. And the 2019 DOJ indictment on 
Huawei, on things as mundane--relative to the genocidal issues 
we were just talking about in Xinjiang--but as mundane as their 
intellectual property theft from T-Mobile from 2012 through 
2014 was laid out in the indictment two years ago.
    And this was roughly the time that you were working for 
them. 2018, I think, was your legal work for them--2017, 2018. 
But that followed you leaving the Obama administration. Did you 
think Huawei was a morally neutral or a neutral or a good 
actor?
    Mr. Fonzone. Thank you, Senator. It was 2018, you're 
correct there. As I stated in response to Senator Rubio's 
question, my firm asked if I would help address some questions 
on how U.S. administrative law works. I did a very small amount 
of analysis on--with respect to that question. Less than 10 
hours.
    Senator Sasse. But you knew it was for Huawei?
    Mr. Fonzone. I did know it was for Huawei and it was----
    Senator Sasse. Who did you think they were?
    Because they're the bad guys.
    Mr. Fonzone. Senator, I understand the concerns you have 
about Huawei.
    Senator Sasse. Do you have concerns about Huawei?
    Mr. Fonzone. I'm very aware of what Director Haines has 
said about Huawei, what this Committee has said about Huawei, 
and if I was confirmed, I would be driven by what the 
Intelligence Community's views are of Huawei. That would 
underpin my analysis. I did the work I did because a partner 
asked me to help a company understand U.S. law, and that's the 
advice I provided in a very small amount of work.
    And there's been no follow-up with it since then.
    Senator Sasse. This is a company that's involved in 
genocide and this is a company that habitually, systematically 
is involved in stealing IP from U.S. companies. Helping them 
with rulemaking or their understanding of rulemaking is not 
helping a morally neutral actor and it's not helping them 
comply with U.S. law. It's helping them figure out how they can 
skirt U.S. law.
    You're well aware, I assume, that China's national security 
laws compel China's ostensibly, but not really, private sector 
companies to share all their information with the government, 
correct?
    Mr. Fonzone. I'm not an expert on Chinese law but that 
sounds accurate to me, yes.
    Senator Sasse. Thank you.
    Mr. Holmgren, INR is very important and I think those of us 
who feel a responsibility to not just help provide oversight 
for the now 18 intelligence agencies, with Space Force, but 
also to express gratitude for a lot of people who work in the 
Intelligence Community who don't have people, private citizens 
able to thank them often. INR is critically important. It 
obviously has an illustrious history. But it's also had 
challenges over the years in intelligence sharing with the 
broader community.
    Can you give us your sense of what INR's particular 
challenges are as you arrive? That you need to deal with? And 
how do you advance the agenda of intelligence sharing with the 
broader community?
    Mr. Holmgren. Thank you, Senator. And I appreciate those 
remarks about INR. Again, INR is unique in the Intelligence 
Community in that it is the only one of three all-source 
intelligence agencies that serves at the intersection of 
intelligence and diplomacy. And so, if confirmed, I think the 
major challenges that I understand INR is facing also align to 
the priorities I indicated at the top. But importantly in 
making sure that our finite resources are aligned and 
strategically and efficiently prioritized against the big four: 
China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, as well as some other 
important threats.
    Second, on the technology front, I think there's both, in 
my view, a need to further enable INR's technology 
modernization program so that it can support our customers but 
also the cyber security imperative to make sure that we are 
adequately protecting its data networks and systems.
    And then finally on the talent side, INR has a really long 
and rich tradition of attracting some of the best and brightest 
experts who spend their careers at INR. We want to encourage 
that, but at the same time make sure that we have sufficient 
expertise on the team to address a bunch of really challenging 
new technical issues in the emerging technology space.
    Senator Sasse. Thank you. Thanks for your charity yesterday 
on our schedule bumps as well. I look forward to continuing the 
discussions about emerging tech. I'm out of time now but I'll 
follow-up with you. Thank you.
    Chairman Warner. Thanks. Senator Wyden?
    Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Fonzone, we talked about whistleblowers when you came 
to the office. And as you know, I think the Trump 
administration regularly undermined whistleblowers. And to 
their credit, the Biden administration officials have told me 
that it's going to change on their watch.
    So I want to be very clear on a point that is critical to 
me. And I don't think we've gotten into this, but if the 
inspector general transmits to the Director a whistleblower 
complaint that the inspector general has said is urgent, is the 
Director obligated by law to forward it to the Congress?
    Mr. Fonzone. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I know 
this is an issue of concern that we talked about before the 
hearing.
    With respect to your question, the law is clear. When the 
ICIG presents a whistleblower complaint, it is a matter of 
urgent concern to the DNI. The DNI shall transmit that complain 
to Congress.
    Senator Wyden. So the answer is yes.
    Mr. Fonzone. Yes.
    Senator Wyden. Operative ``shall.''
    Mr. Fonzone. Yes.
    Senator Wyden. Great. Thank you.
    Let's go to data purchases then for a moment. Again, in the 
office, we talked about the bipartisan legislation I have. The 
Fourth Amendment is not for sale where the government basically 
uses a credit card to throw the Fourth Amendment in the trash 
can.
    Now, I believe Americans have a right to know how the 
government interprets laws, and that includes ways in which the 
Intelligence Community goes around the courts by buying 
Americans' private records from these data brokers, these 
sleazy operators who are basically accountable to no one.
    If you're confirmed, will you ensure that the Intelligence 
Community is transparent about the circumstances in which it 
does this?
    Mr. Fonzone. Senator, during her confirmation process, 
Director Haines committed to seeking to articulate a framework 
for how the Intelligence Community purchases data so the public 
can understand that and what the legal basis for purchasing the 
data is. And I think the idea would be to make that framework 
public to the maximum extent you can, consistent with sources 
and methods. And if confirmed, I would look to support the 
Director in pulling that framework together.
    Senator Wyden. Do you agree that the public record should 
include information on the amount of Americans' records 
collected without a court order?
    Mr. Fonzone. Senator, I think transparency is very 
important to the IC.
    Senator Wyden. That's not the question. The question is: 
should the American people know the amount of records? Because 
this is pretty obvious. If it goes on on a very rare basis, 
then we're going to look at whether there was a sources and 
methods concern. But I think we need to know the amount of 
records being collected this way. And I'm interested in whether 
you think that the public record should include information on 
the amount.
    Mr. Fonzone. Senator, I think the IC should provide as much 
information as they can about the amount of information they're 
collecting. I just don't know enough, not being in government 
right now, about what the potential risks might be.
    Senator Wyden. Well don't you learn a little bit more in 
the next few days and get back to me within a week. Okay? On 
that       point--.
    Mr. Fonzone. Senator, thank you.
    Senator Wyden. Good. Now, there's a lot of confusion about 
how the community interprets the Supreme Court's Carpenter 
case. This is the big geolocation data case. And whether it can 
collect Americans' geolocation information without a warrant.
    If you're confirmed, would you clear this up by issuing 
public guidance on how Carpenter applies to the Intelligence 
Community?
    Mr. Fonzone. Thank you, Senator.
    Carpenter is a very important decision and, to the IC, it's 
one of the Supreme Court's major statements about how 
information created in the digital age is covered by the Fourth 
Amendment. I know during her confirmation process Director 
Haines committed to engaging with IC lawyers on whether 
guidance on Carpenter is necessary. And if confirmed, I would 
look forward to working with her on understanding Carpenter and 
how it applies to the IC's actions and whether guidance is 
necessary.
    Senator Wyden. Why in the world would one say they need to 
clear up whether guidance is needed? There's tremendous 
confusion. The agencies are all over the map. That's a matter 
of fact. So I'm still not clear. Do you think guidance is 
necessary or not?
    Mr. Fonzone. Senator, I can see why guidance might be 
necessary. Carpenter is a very important decision. Not being in 
government, I don't know the state of what the different IC 
entities are--what their positions are on Carpenter. I know the 
Director wants to look into this.
    Senator Wyden. My time is pretty much up. Why don't you get 
back to me within a week on that point as well? I'm not even 
going to ask my other question, because given how much 
confusion there is, I thought that at a minimum if confirmed 
you would tell agencies to be transparent about what they're 
doing. But clearly we're not even at that point. So, I would 
like within a week an answer to the question of whether you 
think guidance is necessary for the Community on the Carpenter 
question, which speaks to geolocation and is right at the heart 
of this question about whether people are going to have their 
Fourth Amendment rights protected.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Fonzone. Thank you, Senator.
    Chairman Warner. The Chairman has no further questions. 
Anybody else want a second round?
    Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Chairman, I am on via WebEx.
    Chairman Warner. Oh, I apologize, Senator Gillibrand.
    Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
    Chairman Warner. That was my mistake.
    Senator Gillibrand. No, no. I'm good.
    Chairman Warner. Alright. Senator Gillibrand.
    Senator Gillibrand. Perfect.
    Mr. Holmgren, it has been reported that a growing number of 
U.S. personnel overseas, including State Department employees, 
have been targeted in a mysterious series of attacks causing 
significant health impacts. This has reportedly occurred in 
Cuba, China, and elsewhere. I cannot overstate how critical it 
is that we get to the bottom of who is doing this, that we hold 
the perpetrators accountable, and that we take care of our 
people.
    If you are confirmed, do you commit to doing everything in 
your power to ensure that the Intelligence Community protects 
these individuals, determines the origin of the attacks, and 
makes sure that the victims are given the appropriate medical 
care? And if confirmed do you commit to regularly engaging with 
the Committee on this issue?
    Mr. Holmgren. Thank you, Senator.
    I know this is a concern raised by several Members of the 
Committee during the pre-hearing meetings. And I very much 
share those concerns. I've spoken to victims of these egregious 
attacks and I know that they are suffering; I know that their 
families are suffering. And Senator, if confirmed, I will have 
no higher priority than ensuring that the Department of State 
and the Intelligence Community are working to protect the 
safety and security of U.S. personnel, their families, and U.S. 
citizens overseas.
    And as a testament to how serious I take this issue, if 
confirmed, I will ask my staff to provide a classified briefing 
on the matter on my first day in office. And to keep me 
regularly updated on the issue. And, of course, pledge to keep 
the Committee informed.
    Senator Gillibrand. And let me give you some guidance. It's 
very important with the kind of impact--disease impact that 
these attacks seem to have been causing, that you create 
experts in the field. And I would highly recommend that--[audio 
interruption]--at one location such as Walter Reed where you 
can have doctors that are read in and understanding what is at 
stake so that these service members and Intelligence Community 
members and members of the State Department are not looking far 
and wide for experts.
    With the 9/11 first responders and community members, we 
developed state-of-the-art care for them based on the nature of 
their exposure. I think we have to use what we learned there 
and develop a state-of-the-art-care for the men and women who 
have been exposed.
    And I'd like your commitment to working toward that end.
    Mr. Holmgren. Yes, Senator, and with INR specifically I 
commit that this will be a priority in terms of supporting the 
Department and ensuring that its personnel have the resources 
they need. I very much appreciate the issue.
    Senator Gillibrand. Okay. Thank you.
    Now with regard to Mr. Fonzone: the families of the victims 
of September 11th have long been seeking certain documents from 
the FBI related to the facilitators who enabled the 
perpetrators of the attacks. The last Administration blocked 
the release of the requested documents. Almost 20 years after 
the attacks, the families and the American people deserve much 
better.
    I have read these documents myself and I believe that 
there's additional information that can be shared with the 
families. I have asked DNI Avril Haines to work with me to 
ensure that while sensitive sources and methods may need to be 
protected and remain classified, that the documents undergo a 
full review so that we can maximize transparency with the 
families and the public.
    If you are confirmed, will you commit to work with me to 
ensure that all appropriate information on this topic is 
reviewed for declassification so that it can hopefully be 
shared with the families?
    Mr. Fonzone. Thank you, Senator. If confirmed, I would work 
with the Director and you on this issue.
    Senator Gillibrand. Thank you. And my last question--do I 
still have time, Mr. Chairman? Or has my time been consumed?
    Chairman Warner. No, you've still got time for one more.
    Senator Gillibrand. Okay. Mr. Fonzone, if confirmed you 
will be the top lawyer in the Intelligence Community. What 
would be your advice to the DNI regarding the role of the 
Intelligence Community in addressing the threat of domestic 
terrorism? Where do you see that line of authorities between 
the significant domestic national security threat, the 
Intelligence Community's capability, and the law enforcement 
community?
    And related, we've seen such an intense influx of 
cyberattacks by sophisticated foreign adversaries who have 
utilized U.S. computing infrastructure to mask the origin of 
attacks. This has also raised concerns that the perpetrators 
are exploiting a perceived gap in intelligence authorities that 
make it difficult for the IC to track cyber threats on domestic 
networks.
    If confirmed as the top intelligence lawyer in the U.S. 
Government, what would be your advice to the DNI regarding the 
intelligence authorities needed to better defend the United 
States from these type of attacks?
    Mr. Fonzone. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I think 
you flagged two very difficult legal issues where the threats 
can span the domestic to the international, and drawing a line 
between where the IC's authorities are and where the 
authorities of other entities who are responsible for 
addressing those threats are. If confirmed, I think both cyber 
security and domestic threats would be areas of major focus for 
me.
    And I would commit to you that I would both, one, try to 
make sure that the Intelligence Community is operating within--
ensure that the Intelligence Community is operating within its 
authorities. Two, be very careful to ensure that the 
Intelligence Community is not intruding on the domestic sphere 
where it should not intrude and it's respecting the 
Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. And three, as your 
question alluded to, if I identify any authority gaps where the 
Intelligence Community lacks the authorities it needs to keep 
the Nation safe, I would obviously bring those to this 
Committee and work with this Committee to fill those gaps.
    Senator Gillibrand. Yes. And I'm most concerned about the 
third issue, because we've had several open sessions where 
there are perceived gaps and perceived vulnerabilities because 
of the way we have aligned our capabilities. And I think it 
needs a deep dive and I think it needs advice.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
    Chairman Warner. Let me just reiterate one point that 
Senator Gillibrand made. And it applies you, Mr. Holmgren, but 
I think it also applies to you, Mr. Fonzone. This Committee, 
frankly, has been shocked on this issue related to the so-
called Havana Syndrome. That for now close to five years we've 
been getting reports. Many of the individuals that work for 
various parts of the American government appeared not to get 
treatment in an appropriate manner.
    It's fairly stunning to, I think, all of us that we still 
don't know four to five years in on an attribution issue: who 
perpetrated these attacks? We don't know what devices were 
used, and only recently do we feel like the individuals who--
clearly many who were harmed--were getting any kind of 
respected treatment.
    And the notion that we're asking people to serve all over 
the world and the--not only the actual potential--the actual 
threat posed by whatever actor using whatever device, but just 
the psychological notion that you and your family could be 
posted somewhere and be a victim of something that at least for 
a number of years it appears like the American government 
didn't take seriously enough in both a medical or from an 
investigative standpoint.
    I've had a number of conversations with the Director on 
this. IC personnel, State Department personnel, DOD personnel. 
It appears now people serving domestically here at home. We've 
got to get to the bottom of this. And Senator Rubio and I and 
every Member of this Committee is committed to getting those 
answers. And we'll expect that kind of response.
    I want to thank you both again, echoing what so many other 
Members have said about your willingness to serve. These are 
critical times. I think you hear from all of us, we're going to 
ask you hard questions. But should you both be confirmed, this 
Committee will have your back. But we will also expect 
forthright, straightforward answers. And now more than ever, 
it's important that the IC has the willingness to speak truth 
to power.
    And with that, the Committee is adjourned. Thank you both.
    [Whereupon at 3:55 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                         Supplemental Material


	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
  

                                  [all]