No. The Senator is correct. There seems, however, to be some considerable degree of confusion in the Congress about how that test is going to be structured and what the process is and an expression on the part of many Members that Congress ought to be involved in the process. So let's just temporarily put that on hold so that the Congress can engage in terms of a better understanding and defining how that ought to be put together. I have agreed that perhaps that is the best way to go, because unless we really have some better understanding and assessment of that, I am not exactly sure we are going to accomplish what we want. I think the basic principle that I tried to propose earlier, which the Senator supports, I still retain that. I am going to work toward that end.
Dan Coats: “No. The Senator is correct. There seems, however, to be some considerable degree of confusion in the Congress about how…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the need for Congress to be involved in structuring a test process.
Share
More from Dan Coats
I believe the top of the list will be to reinforce the prime imperative for our Nation's Intelligence Community: to find the truth and to speak truth to power, without fear of political retribution.
I know others have talked about that here today, but when you and I had a chance to talk earlier in the last couple weeks, I mentioned one of my real concerns about China.
You'll need to demonstrate to the American people that the Intelligence Community deserves their utmost confidence as a source of truth and insight.
One of the first things you can do--at this hearing, even--is to make a strong statement of support for professionalism in the IC and pledge that you will not tolerate politics influencing the analytical process.





