Hearings
Hearing Type:
Open
Location:
Full Transcript
[Senate Hearing 109-79]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-79
NOMINATION OF AMBASSADOR
JOHN D. NEGROPONTE TO BE
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 12, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Intelligence
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
22-581 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
[Established by S. Res. 400, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.]
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas, Chairman
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Vice Chairman
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah CARL LEVIN, Michigan
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri RON WYDEN, Oregon
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi EVAN BAYH, Indiana
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
BILL FRIST, Tennessee, Ex Officio
HARRY REID, Nevada, Ex Officio
JOHN WARNER, Virginia, Ex Officio
----------
Bill Duhnke, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Andrew W. Johnson, Minority Staff Director
Kathleen P. McGhee, Chief Clerk
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held in Washington, DC:
April 12, 2005............................................... 1
Statements:
Corzine, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from New Jersey.............. 34
Hagel, Hon. Chuck, U.S. Senator from Nebraska, prepared
statement.................................................. 28
Negroponte, Ambassardor John D., Nominee to be Director of
National
Intellegence............................................... 9
Roberts, Hon. Pat, U.S. Senator from Kansas.................. 1
Rockefeller, Hon. John D. IV, U.S. Senator from West Virginia 4
Snowe, Hon. Olympia J., U.S. Senator from Maine.............. 22
Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska.................. 7
Additional Material:
Questionnaire for completion by Presidential Nominees........ 54
Additional Pre-hearing questions............................. 137
Letter from Marilyn L. Glenn, Office of Government Ethics.... 147
Letter from Amb. John D. Negroponte to John A. Rizzo, Central
Intelligence Agency........................................ 168
Letter from Amb. John D. Negroponte to the Honorable John D.
Rockefeller IV............................................. 171
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 158
NOMINATION OF AMBASSADOR
JOHN D. NEGROPONTE TO BE
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2005
United States Senate,
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:12 a.m., in
room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, the Honorable Pat
Roberts, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Committee Members Present: Senators Roberts, Hatch, DeWine,
Bond, Lott, Snowe, Hagel, Chambliss, Warner, Rockefeller,
Levin, Feinstein, Wyden, Bayh, Mikulski and Corzine.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Roberts. The Committee will come to order.
The distinguished Vice Chairman will be here momentarily.
The Committee meets today to receive testimony on the
President's nomination for the newly-created position of
Director of National Intelligence. Our distinguished witness
today is the President's nominee, the Honorable John D.
Negroponte. Ambassador, the Committee does welcome you and your
guests.
The Committee also welcomes our distinguished colleague,
who will introduce the nominee, the Senate's President Pro Tem
and Senior Senator from Alaska, the Honorable Ted Stevens. The
Junior Senator from New York, the Honorable Hillary Rodham
Clinton was to be here, but apparently has a conflict.
The President has made an excellent choice, I believe, in
nominating Ambassador Negroponte to serve as the Nation's first
Director of National Intelligence. Ambassador Negroponte is a
distinguished public servant, having dedicated 40 years and
service to our country.
During his career, the Senate has confirmed him five
times--five times for Ambassadorial positions in Honduras,
Mexico, the Philippines, at the United Nations and, of course,
most recently as our first Ambassador to the new Iraq.
Ambassador Negroponte also has held a number of key
positions in the Executive Branch, including serving as Deputy
National Security Adviser. He has worked on intelligence and
national security issues all throughout his career, and in that
respect I think brings a great deal of experience to this
position. Most important, Ambassador Negroponte has a
demonstrated record as an outstanding manager and a leader. He
is well suited for this position and I look forward to his
confirmation.
Intelligence has long played an important role in the
defense of the United States and its interests. We developed
what is now known as the intelligence community to determine
the capabilities and intentions of state actors and their
respective militaries. The idea that a non-state actor could
seriously threaten our national security was virtually
inconceivable 50-plus years ago.
Given the grave dangers that our Nation now faces from
threats such as terrorism and the expansion of weapons of mass
destruction, what was inconceivable a half century ago has now
become reality, and intelligence is now the key to our success.
In the past few decades, there have been many unsuccessful
attempts to reform the intelligence community. Those attempts,
quite frankly, resulted in little more than incremental and
marginal changes. It took the very visible intelligence
failures associated with 9/11 and the flawed assessments on
Iraq's WMD programs to build the historic consensus required
for substantial change.
And change is a very necessary process. If it ultimately
results in fundamental and substantial change, as it appears
that it might, it will have been for the good. Change will be
good not only for the U.S. national security, but also for the
men and women of the intelligence community.
In my years on the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have
met many of these hardworking men and women who work day in and
day out with one goal in mind--keeping this Nation secure and
its people safe. They are held back, however, I think, by a
flawed system that does not permit them as a community to do
their very best work. We need to honor their commitment and
their sacrifices by giving them an intelligence community
worthy of their efforts and capable of meeting their
aspirations and our expectations of them.
I understand that change can be hard and stressful, but we
need change--and not just a month or a year of change, but
sustained, fundamental change that becomes a continuing process
of adaptation as new threats emerge.
Now, we all know that terrorism is a long-term threat to
our national security, but I can assure you that it will not be
the last threat that we face. There will be others which will
require our intelligence community to continue to be adaptive
and flexible.
Mr. Ambassador, the process of change begins with you. It
is my foremost hope that, when confirmed, you will begin to
provide the strong, independent leadership that has long been
lacking in our intelligence community.
The position for which you have been nominated was created
by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004. It is no secret that this bill did not go as far as I
would have liked in creating a Director of National
Intelligence, or the DNI, with the very clear authorities and
chain of command that the intelligence community, I think,
requires. As I have said before, the Intelligence Reform Act is
not the best possible bill, but rather the best bill possible
under very difficult circumstances.
If we embrace the concept of change as a continuing
process, however, this reform effort is a very solid first step
in the right direction of someday creating a clear chain of
command and accountability within that chain.
For now, we must implement and oversee an Intelligence
Reform Act that is somewhat ambiguous with respect to your
authorities and responsibilities. Ambassador, this ambiguity
has created justifiable concern about whether you, as the DNI,
have the clear authorities you will need to meet your vast
responsibilities. In other words, we have high expectations.
But did we give you the tools you will need to meet them?
President Bush has made some very forceful statements about
the strong authority that the DNI will have in his
Administration. I am confident that, when confirmed, you will
have the strong support of the President.
I am equally confident that you will have the same strong
support from this Committee. In other words, if you need help,
let us know. I'll be the stagecoach driver along with the rest
of the Members of the Committee. You can be the shotgun rider.
I think that's turned around. You be the stagecoach driver.
We'll be the shotgun rider. But for now you have a blank slate
and any ambiguities in your authority will be up to you to
resolve. We need your advice.
This leads me to an important point. As the first DNI, you
will establish historic precedents that will define all future
DNIs as well as set the course for the future of the entire
intelligence community. We can legislate powerful authorities
all day long, but as the history of the position of the
Director of Central Intelligence has shown, if the first DNI
does not exercise his authorities, it will be difficult for any
subsequent DNI to do so.
Exercising the authorities of the DNI will not be easy.
Setting the precedent of a strong DNI will likely mean stepping
on more than a few toes along the way. I am confident, however,
that you are the right man for that job.
It is my hope that as the Director of National Intelligence
you will be independent of the interests of any one
intelligence agency, and that you will achieve a better flow of
information in our Government. To me this means that
intelligence information will be passed to decisionmakers not
because it comes from a particular agency, but because it
represents the best work from any agency.
This also means that we must reject the concept of
information-sharing in favor of what the Vice Chairman and I
call information access. I believe, as does the WMD Commission,
that information sharing is a limited idea that falsely implies
that the data collector is also the data owner. The concept of
information-sharing relies on our collectors to push the
information to these analysts who they deem really need it.
We need new thinking on this issue. While we must continue
to protect sources and methods--we know all know that--cleared
analysts with a need to know should be able to pull information
by searching all intelligence databases without waiting for any
one agency to deem them worthy.
Now, this is a very challenging proposition. I can assure
you that the intelligence collection agencies will not greet
such efforts with great enthusiasm. Even with the intelligence
failures of 9/11 and Iraq WMD hanging over us and the
staggering willful inability to share information associated
with those failures, achieving a free flow of intelligence
information has still proved very, very elusive.
Mr. Ambassador, it is my hope that you'll be able to
provide leadership and, quite frankly, a kick in the pants when
necessary to get our collection agencies to finally perfect the
concept of information access.
As you know, in Washington politics and turf is a zero-sum
game. Just by showing up on your first day of work you will
already have stepped on quite a few toes. I am confident,
however, that you will perform your duties in a manner that
will soon have us wondering how we ever got along without a
Director of National Intelligence.
When we get to that point--and I hope it happens sooner
than later--we can begin moving toward what I believe must be
the ultimate goal: a more rationalized, organized intelligence
community with a clear chain of command and accountability that
comes with it.
With that said, I again welcome you to the Committee and
look forward to your testimony.
I now recognize the distinguished Vice Chairman, Senator
Rockefeller.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV,
VICE CHAIRMAN
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ambassador, welcome. It's my view that the President's
confidence in you to lead the intelligence community as
Director of National Intelligence at a time of enormous
turbulence, 20 or 30 or 40 years of war on terrorism out in
front of us and a lot of national introspection is a well-
founded decision.
You have a 40-year career of public service in some of the
most difficult places. People tend to forget how hard that can
be--in Vietnam, the Paris Peace Talks, which most Americans
probably don't know, South and Central America, the United
Nations and obviously, most recently, Iraq. This breeds a tough
and disciplined man with self-esteem and with the willingness
to make decisions and to tell truth to power, which I think is
key in all of this.
Since joining the Foreign Service as a young man out of
college, you've ably served our country and if confirmed you
will continue to do so. Your abilities as a manager, your skill
as a negotiator, your understanding of the workings of
Government are going to be applied to a much different, and
certainly much more difficult, task than even those that you've
had.
You've been asked to lead an intelligence community that is
bruised, but fundamentally unbowed by the failures of 9/11 and
Iraq prewar intelligence, a group of 15 agencies with their own
respective cultures that are in the process of being reshaped
and redefined into a cohesive entity that can more effectively
blunt the murderous plots of the terrorists and stymie the
global spread of weapons of mass destruction. This is happening
to a certain extent in the intelligence community. There has
been some of that thanks to the counterterrorism center.
This is a tall order for any well-seasoned professional,
which is what you are. The position of Director of National
Intelligence is one of the toughest jobs in Washington--I would
put it in the top three or four--frankly, in terms of the
pressure that will be on you, the spotlight that will be on
you, and the mandate for the country that will be placed
squarely on your shoulders. You will need to call upon all of
the skills that you have.
Now, let me take this opportunity to summarize what I see
as five pressing challenges that you will have to deal with if
you are confirmed, and hopefully we can discuss them further
during the questioning period.
First, it is absolutely essential that our intelligence is
timely, objective and independent of political considerations.
As you know, this is what the law requires. This is not a
simple judgment. This is the 1947 National Security Act, as
amended by the Intelligence Reform Act. Timely, effective,
independent, objective intelligence is the law.
You will need to speak truth to power, and that includes
the President of the United States, obviously--that's very
important; and I'll have a specific question for you on that--
even if the truth is not well received by any policymaker or a
group of, or inconsistent with stated policy goals.
The credibility of the intelligence community and, by
extension the credibility of the United States, has suffered
when key intelligence reports, such as the prewar intelligence
on Iraq, failed the test of being timely, objective and
independent, as required by law.
Second, the issue of accountability is to many of us a very
important one. The WMD commission highlighted the issue very
strongly. As far as I can determine, no one was held
accountable for the numerous failures to share critical
intelligence and act on the intelligence warnings in the year-
and-a-half prior to the 9/11 attacks. In fact, the Committee is
still waiting--now 3 years later--for the CIA Inspector General
Report on Accountability after 9/11.
Government doesn't function without accountability. You, as
DNI, if you're confirmed, will bear that very heavy
responsibility to make it effective. It's not just negative
accountability, it can also be positive accountability.
Likewise, there has been a lack of accountability over the
misrepresentation of intelligence by analysts prior to the Iraq
war. There was a great deal that went on between the time that
the Senate voted to authorize the President, and then the
Powell speech, and then, later in March, the decision to go to
war. There was an enormous amount of statements that were made,
what some of us would call hyping and misrepresenting what the
intelligence actually said, particularly in the area of Iraq's
nuclear and biological weapons programs.
If accountability is absent, workers are sent the wrong
message--that there are no incentives for improving job
performance. That is not a monetary matter I'm talking about;
it's a question of firing, promoting, good words to them,
something good in the record. I think it's an extremely
important part of accountability and that does not disinclude
firing.
Third, the intelligence reform bill passed by Congress last
December is a blueprint for achieving a more focused and
effectively-managed intelligence community. Making this vision
a reality will take time and require you and your deputies and
your staff to flesh out, as they say, some of the details in
the legislation.
I disagree with the statement of the Chairman only in this
regard, and that is that I think it's very important--and we've
talked about this when we met privately--that we not try to
cram a whole bunch of new reforms into our authorization bill
or do it into some vehicle on the floor of the Senate.
I think you and your team will need the time to look over
the landscape, to make judgments about what's being done and
what's not being done, and then make your decisions and your
recommendations about what should be changed, if anything, from
that point.
In fact, I would go further. I think the fact that we did
not so perfectly delineate your responsibilities is a great
advantage. It was important. Congress cannot do that; only you
and your team can do that, and then go over that with us.
I'm concerned that while some progress has been made in the
coordination of agency activities at places like the National
Counterterrorism Center, which I've mentioned, much more needs
to be done. Specifically, I'm concerned that the increase in
the overseas collection of intelligence by the CIA, the
Pentagon, the FBI, while laudatory is not being properly
orchestrated in a cohesive fashion.
On the domestic front, I see the insular culture at the FBI
changing, but much too slowly, and the counterterrorism efforts
of the Bureau still hampered by outdated and dysfunctional
information technologies systems.
Fourth, the collection of intelligence through the
detention, interrogation and rendition of suspected terrorists
and insurgents will be a responsibility of the intelligence
community for as long as our Nation remains in a global war
against terrorism, which I suspect will be decades yet to come.
I believe that we have lacked a comprehensive and
consistent legal and operational policy on the detention and
interrogation of prisoners since we began our operations in
Afghanistan. This in turn, in my judgment, has led to confusion
among officials in the field and numerous cases of documented
abuses that appear several times every week.
I've been advocating for over 2 months now that our
Committee undertake an investigation that would get to the
heart of these legal and operational matters and propose
corrective recommendations. The intelligence that we gain
through these interrogations is too important--much too
important--to allow shortcomings in this program to continue,
for boundaries to be ill-defined.
I trust that you share my concern. And I hope you will
assist our Committee in undertaking a constructive inquiry into
detention, interrogation and rendition practices.
Finally, the President's intelligence budget for the fiscal
year 2006 was formulated during the time last year when your
position was being worked through in terms of legislation, not
when you were in office. Obviously, the budget that was sent to
Congress prior to your confirmation, by the time that you're in
office, it may be relevant or lack some relevancy, either for
this coming fiscal year or for the following one.
My point is that it's absolutely essential that this budget
becomes your budget, as the Director of National Intelligence.
If the intelligence spending priorities proposed in the
national intelligence program do not match your own priorities,
I urge that you prepare a budget amendment and forward it to us
with alacrity. That would refer to 2006.
You will be the individual responsible for executing the
new intelligence budget come October. The sooner it reflects
your guidance the better. Ambassador, the support of the
President will be a key factor in your ability to meet these
and other challenges facing you as DNI. The reform act provides
the director position with considerable authorities. But the
most important authority of all is the backing of the President
when you get to your first couple of tests. And it'll be those
first couple of tests on which you will be judged. And who
knows where that will come from, but I think reasonable people
can make reasonable guesses on that.
So you will make a decision, and it will be very important
for the President to back you up. If he does not, you will be
weakened. If he does, you will be strengthened. And it does not
take long in this city, as you know, for people to make up
their minds about the aura and therefore the fact of power, of
holding a powerful position.
I thank you again for appearing before us, for being
willing to take on a job of this dimension, which I said I
think is historic in its reach--global reach, national reach--
and effect on the lives of all Americans.
I thank you.
Chairman Roberts. I thank the Vice Chairman. Just for the
record, I don't know what chairman you're listening to, but it
was not me that suggested that we cram the authorization bill
with changes to the intelligence reform bill. I don't think
it's possible to cram anything through the Senate, let alone
any changes to the intelligence reform bill. And, as you have
suggested, Mr. Vice Chairman, we do listen very carefully and
ask the advice and counsel of the DNI before we move on any
changes.
It is my privilege now to recognize the distinguished
Senior Senator from Alaska, the Alaskan of the century, Senator
Stevens.
I would only indicate to you, Mr. Ambassador, this is what
some of us in Dodge City, Kansas, would call your friendly
hometown intelligence community banker. So I think the closer
you sit next to him, why, the more successful you might be.
Senator Stevens.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Stevens: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Members
of the Committee. I'm delighted to have the opportunity to come
here today to recommend speedy reporting of this nomination to
the Senate and a quick action on it.
Ambassador Negroponte and I have known each other now for
almost 30 years and we have developed a great personal
friendship.
Actually, John started out in the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Oceans and Fisheries Affairs with the rank of
Ambassador. And in that connection he handled several matters
that pertained to fisheries. This goes back into the early
1970s. And one of the things he did was to not only visit our
State frequently, but he also conducted the breakthrough
agreement with the government of Japan that provided for
crucial protection of the wild salmon for the United States on
the open sea, in the oceans.
This high seas fishing agreement has led to the
preservation of the largest fish found in the world, the
Bristol Bay salmon, and he was directly associated with that.
Those benefits continue to protect a series of small native
communities in Alaska.
And I have had the pleasure of working with him in the
assignments that all of you have mentioned so far--the two of
you mentioned so far--Ambassador to Honduras, Assistant
Secretary for Oceans, International Environment and Scientific
Affairs, Ambassador to the Philippines, Ambassador to the
United Nations and, of course, he is currently the Ambassador
to Iraq.
I have witnessed his ability to work on very difficult
assignments, to manage large and complex diplomatic and joint
State and Defense missions. I have observed his effectiveness
and sensitivity in dealing with foreign counterparts, which I
think is going to be crucial to this job of his.
Educated at Yale, my friend speaks five languages fluently,
and I consider that to be a really true asset for the job he's
got ahead of him.
I believe President Bush, as you've said, has chosen
extremely wisely and I welcome his selection to be our Nation's
first Director of National Intelligence.
And as you've indicated, Senator Inouye and I currently
have the responsibility of overseeing the funding for this new
position. We certainly are going to do everything we can to
work with Ambassador Negroponte--now Director Negroponte.
This is, as you said, a very crucial period of our history,
and we need his vast experience to guide this new establishment
and to fulfill the obligations and commitments we've made to
the country in this new position. It requires finesse and
skill.
I can tell you very seriously, I think this is one of the
most distinguished public servants I've had the honor of
knowing. In my 36 years here in the Senate, I don't think I've
known anyone who's handled every single job he undertook in the
way that John has completed his assignments. I am confident
that the United States will be well served by his confirmation,
and we look forward to working with this Committee to assure
that he has the tools to complete this job and to really find
new headquarters, to do a great many things.
And I wouldn't worry, Senator Rockefeller, about sending up
a different budget. I can assure you that the two of us will
listen to him and what his needs will be for the fiscal year
2006.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Roberts. Senator Stevens, on behalf of the
Committee, we thank you for being here to introduce this fine
nominee. I know, sir, that you have many important duties. We
would love to have you for the full hearing, seeking your
continued advice and counsel, but we know you have miles to go
and things to do.
Senior Stevens. Thank you very much.
Chairman Roberts. Mr. Ambassador, you may proceed. And may
I suggest to you, sir, that you introduce your lovely wife
Diana and the rest of your family who is sitting directly
behind your right shoulder?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. NEGROPONTE,
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE-DESIGNATE
Ambassador Negroponte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to introduce my wife Diana and two of my five
children. Diana teaches history at Fordham University at the
moment. My daughter Alejandra, who is a junior at Georgetown
University, and my son John, who is a junior at St. Johnsbury
Academy in St. Johnsbury, Vermont.
I also happen to have three other children who, for a
variety of reasons, were not able to be here with us at this
hearing.
Chairman Roberts. Well, we welcome you and your family and
we thank you very much and you may certainly proceed with your
statement.
Ambassador Negroponte. Thank you so much.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Rockefeller, distinguished Members of
the Committee, I am pleased to appear before you today as the
President's nominee to be the first Director of National
Intelligence.
I support the fine work this Committee has done to guide
and inform United States intelligence policy. And, if
confirmed, I look forward to our continued close consultation.
I know that the Members of the Committee share my conviction
that timely, accurate intelligence is a critical component of
preserving our national security.
Without good intelligence, we will be unable to defeat the
terrorists who began their assault us on long before September
11th, 2001; we will fall short in our efforts to counter the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; we will lack the
insight we need to deal with hostile regimes that practice
artful schemes of denial and deception to conceal their
dangerous intentions; and we will possess insufficient
understanding of an array of global phenomena that could have
consequences for our economy, our health and environment, our
allies and our freedom.
The United States intelligence community, staffed by
talented, patriotic Americans, forms what President Bush has
rightly called our first line of defense. My job, if confirmed,
will be to ensure that this community works as an integrated,
unified, cost-effective enterprise, enabling me to provide the
President, his Cabinet, the armed services and the Congress
with the best possible intelligence product, both current and
strategic, on a regular basis.
My qualifications for this post extend over a career in
public service that began in October 1960. Since then, I have
been nominated for posts subject to confirmation by the U.S.
Senate eight times. On five occasions, I have served as Chief
of Mission of United States Embassies and had the privilege of
working with many fine representatives of the United States
intelligence community, the armed services and the Cabinet
departments.
I also have served as Deputy National Security Adviser to
the President of the United States. Coordinating intelligence
support for the National Security Council was one of my primary
responsibilities under President Reagan.
During my most recent assignment as the United States
Ambassador to Iraq, I saw firsthand the savage depredations of
terrorists and insurgents who oppose the birth of a new
democracy. These are violent, determined adversaries who cannot
be thwarted, captured or killed without close coordination
between all of our intelligence assets--military and civilian,
technical and human.
The forces of freedom are making progress in this struggle,
with the most notable accomplishment being Iraq's national
election on January 30th. But much remains to be done. To
prevail, Iraqis must keep to the political timetable
established in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546
and continue to train, equip and motivate effective military
and police forces.
This is their struggle, but President Bush has made clear
that they will have our support. With time, patience and
tenacity, I believe that they will succeed. The formation of a
transitional Iraqi government now underway is a major step
forward.
The position for which I am now nominated is a new
position, in a new era, and the specific recommendations I will
make to the President will require careful study and engagement
that is not possible prior to confirmation. That being the
case, I am not now prepared to describe in detail exactly how I
plan to carry out the job of Director for National
Intelligence.
Nonetheless, there are clear requirements set forth in the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, and I
understand that the Congress and the American people expect
more of the intelligence community today than perhaps ever
before in our history.
In the past 4 years our homeland has been attacked and we
have miscalculated the arsenal, if not the intent, of a
dangerous adversary. Our intelligence effort has to generate
better results. That is my mandate, plain and simple. I expect
this will be the most challenging assignment I have undertaken
in more than 40 years of Government service.
Just as my first requirement in Iraq was to start up a new
embassy, my first requirement as Director of National
Intelligence will be to start up a new organization. In this
regard, I am grateful that the President has nominated
Lieutenant General Mike Hayden as principal Deputy Director for
National Intelligence. General Hayden's distinguished career in
the field of military intelligence, capped by his tenure as
Director of the National Security Agency, will enable him to
complement my efforts with great insight, wisdom and
experience.
In addition to General Hayden, I will have the support of
other deputies and senior appointees.
I have never been able to accomplish anything in Government
without the help of highly skilled, dedicated colleagues, nor
have I ever taken an approach to leadership that is not built
on the principle of teamwork. Teamwork will remain my North
Star as Director of National Intelligence, not just for my
immediate office, but for the entire intelligence community.
My objective will be to foster proactive cooperation among
the 15 intelligence community elements and thereby optimize
this Nation's extraordinary human and technical resources in
collecting and analyzing intelligence.
We can only make the United States more secure if we
approach intelligence reform as value-added, not zero-sum. The
office of the Director of National Intelligence should be a
catalyst for focusing on the hardest, most important questions
and making it possible for very good people to outperform their
individual talents by drawing on the Nation's investment in
intelligence as a whole.
The President has made clear that the intelligence
community needs fundamental change to successfully confront the
threats of the 21st Century, and this is what I take
fundamental change to mean--working and thinking together,
trusting one another across the various disciplines of
intelligence collection and analysis, jettisoning outmoded
methods, questioning assumptions, breaking down bureaucratic
barriers, establishing priorities, both short-term and
strategic, and sticking to them.
When I have to make difficult decisions or recommendations
to achieve that kind of change, I will do so. We cannot let
another decade tick away without making intelligence reform a
reality.
Mr. Chairman, I am not someone who believes that
intelligence is a panacea. I suspect the Members of the
Committee agree with me. Intelligence is an ingredient in
national security and foreign policy, not the policy itself. It
has limits encrypted in the illusions of dictators and the
fantasies of fanatics. But even if we cannot know every fact or
predict every threat, by working more closely and effective as
a team we can be more specific about what we do not know. And
this is critical. It's the only way we can pinpoint gaps in our
knowledge and find ways to fill them.
As Director of National Intelligence, I will spare no
effort to ensure that our intelligence community is forward-
leaning, but objective, prudent, but not risk-averse, and yet
always faithful to our values and our history as a Nation.
We must make sure that the information generated in one
part of the community is accessible to other parts of the
community. We must recognize that what we do is on behalf of
the taxpayer and not on behalf of individual institutional
interests. We must welcome new ideas, new approaches and new
sources of intelligence.
In this information age, there are many open secrets to be
discovered across the spectrum of government, private sector
and academic enterprise. Our intelligence community is already
alert to this fact, but now is the time to pick up the pace,
mirroring the agility and adaptability of entrepreneurs across
the globe.
A great deal has been said about intelligence fiefdoms
within the United States Government. Some argue that there are
three intelligence communities, not one--a military
intelligence community centered on the Department of Defense; a
foreign intelligence community centered on the CIA; and a
domestic intelligence community centered on the Departments of
Justice and Homeland Security and the FBI.
Where there's so much talk, there's always some truth. In
times past, these arrangements have served the Nation well. But
times present demand that we transcend any foreign-military-
domestic divide that may historically have characterized our
approach to intelligence.
This Committee and the American people know that. The 9/11
Commission knew that. The Commission on the Intelligence
Capabilities of the United States knew that. And having served
as Ambassador to the United Nations, where a multitude of
issues transcend national borders and overflow 20th Century
categories of threat, I know that.
We do not confront a monolithic adversary or a state-based
pact. Rather, we are dealing with an eclectic array of
sometimes discreet, sometimes allied forces that are cunning in
their efforts to define the battlefield to their advantage.
Terrorists, narco-traffickers, high-tech criminals and the
leaders of anti-democratic states know that head-on assaults
against any of our instruments of national security are not
likely to succeed. It is in the cracks and the overlooked gaps
where we are at risk, places where our organizational stance
and, more importantly, our mindset has not caught up with the
dynamics of globalization, which can be used to exacerbate the
grievances and leverage the capacities of our enemies.
We live in an unpredictable world, subject to few of the
old orthodoxies. That is why we must ensure genuine teamwork
between our military, foreign and domestic intelligence
agencies, cooperating with both imagination and diligence to
build upon the core strength of democracy itself--Government
service to the people, all the people, all the time.
I have made it a priority to meet with the Attorney
General, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security,
the Director of the FBI, and law enforcement officials at the
local level the make sure that we all as a team take advantage
of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, using
it to bolster our ability to protect ourselves and our national
interests here in the United States I also have met with the
Secretary of Defense, the National Security Advisor, the
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and other senior
officials responsible for United States security interests
overseas. I have not encountered hesitation on the part of
anyone to begin reforming our intelligence community in ways
that will ensure good overlap and good support, not wasteful
redundancy among the domestic, foreign, and military components
of our efforts.
Everyone knows this will be a tough job, but the things
that have to be done differently will be done differently. We
need a single intelligence community that operates seamlessly,
that moves quickly, and that spends more time thinking about
the future than the past. We need the right mix of human and
technical resources, providing us with a new generation of
capable intelligence officers, analysts and specialists, and
innovative technologies.
Good intelligence is our first line of defense. It is
difficult and often dangerous to produce. Many valiant
Americans have given their lives in its service. But it is the
best way for us to ensure that freedom, democracy and our
national security are protected in the 21st Century.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the Committee for
this opportunity to share these thoughts with you. And, of
course, I welcome your comments and questions.
Chairman Roberts. Mr. Ambassador, thank you for a very
comprehensive statement.
The Committee will now proceed to questions. Each Member
will be recognized by the order of their arrival. Each Member
will be granted 8 minutes so that we can explore fully any
questions that Members have and, if necessary, we will have a
second round.
Given the number of Members that we have--i.e., 14 and
probably 15 in just a few moments, i.e., the Full Committee--I
am going to insist in terms of lightly tapping on the gavel
when each Member's 8 minutes is up with the knowledge that you
would, obviously, have an opportunity in the second round.
Mr. Ambassador, do you agree to appear before the Committee
here or in other venues when invited?
Ambassador Negroponte. Yes, sir.
Chairman Roberts. Do you agree to send the intelligence
community officials to appear before the Committee and
designated staff when invited?
Ambassador Negroponte. Yes, sir.
Chairman Roberts. Do you agree to provide documents or any
material requested by the Committee in order to carry out its
oversight and its legislative responsibilities?
Ambassador Negroponte. I do, sir. Yes.
Chairman Roberts. Will you ensure that all intelligence
community elements provide such material to the Committee when
requested?
Ambassador Negroponte. I do.
If I could just interject, Senator----
Chairman Roberts. Certainly.
Ambassador Negroponte. [continuing.]----I've never reviewed
in its entirety the procedures. Being a career diplomat, I'm
familiar with the State Department procedures; I'm not entirely
familiar with the procedures for the release of documents by
the intelligence community to the Committee.
So there may be some limitations of which I am not aware.
But in any event, you can be certain that I will do my utmost
to be entirely cooperative with the Committee.
Chairman Roberts. There has been a great deal of
discussion, Mr. Ambassador, about the U.S. Government's
involvement in interrogation, rendition and detention of
terrorists in the global war on terror.
I am not going to ask you to discuss in an open hearing the
specifics of any ongoing intelligence operations or, for that
matter, any investigations. But can you commit to us that as
the DNI you will ensure the intelligence community's activities
comply with the Constitution of the United States and all
applicable laws and treaties, and that the elements of the
intelligence community will cooperate with all relevant and
possible investigations?
Ambassador Negroponte. Yes, sir. And I am assured that our
behavior--although I have not been briefed in detail--our
comportment in regard to this question is in keeping and our
policy is to comply with the Constitution and all applicable
laws.
Chairman Roberts. In the Administration's supplemental
funding request for fiscal year 2005 the President requested
$250.3 million to support the initial establishment of the
office of the DNI.
I understand the House Appropriations Committee fully
funded the request, but placed some restrictions on the funds,
and that the Senate Appropriations Committee has not fully
funded the request. The statement of Administration policy on
the supplemental strongly urges the Senate to restore the
funding.
What is the impact, sir, if you do not receive these funds?
Ambassador Negroponte. Well, I believe the principal
impact, Senator, may relate to our ability to find permanent
quarters for the community. But I've also--just in a dialog
I've had with Senator Stevens just this morning, he has assured
me that he will be supportive of providing whatever funding is
required to deal with that issue.
Chairman Roberts. We will await the action of the Senate
and possible action in the conference in regards to that. Our
concern is, without these funds, the establishment of the
office of the DNI could be set back.
I'm going to yield back the balance of my time at this
particular point and recognize the Vice Chairman.
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your
last question was my first question. I think you've answered it
very correctly, because we've said you can't be inside the
White House. So where you are going to land is important and
that money is important for it. And I find it distressing that
money was cut just as you are, in my view, being confirmed.
Ambassador Negroponte, as I indicated in my opening
statement, the collection of intelligence through interrogation
of prisoners is an enormously valuable tool in finding out
important events that might be taking place. If prisoners are
abused or tortured, the information produced may be unreliable
and misleading. Over a year has passed since the first photos
of the abuses of Abu Ghraib appeared.
As DNI, what role will you have in approving the legal and
operational guidance pertaining to how intelligence is
collected from detainees?
Ambassador Negroponte. Senator, if confirmed, I will do all
in my power to make sure that all practices of the intelligence
community are in full compliance with the law.
And as you know, the legislation directs that the Director
of the CIA report to the office for which I have been
nominated. So given the DNI's authority over the CIA
specifically and the intelligence community generally, I would
expect that the DNI would oversee all such activities at the
strategic level.
And coming back to your original point, not only is torture
illegal and reprehensible, but even if it were not so, I don't
think it's an effective way of producing useful information.
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. Do you have any concerns--I
mean, there are varieties of techniques, et cetera, leading up
to the word torture, hopefully not including that word. But do
you have any concerns about what you have read or come to
understand about interrogations that have been carried out at
Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo or Afghanistan?
Ambassador Negroponte. Well, there were abuses, as we
know--appalling abuses--that were carried out in Abu Ghraib.
I'm not intimately familiar with all the practices either there
or certainly not in the other countries that you've mentioned.
But I would come back to my main point. I think the guiding
principle must be that the intelligence community must abide by
all applicable laws and the Constitution of the United States.
I think, beyond that, there might be some questions that we
could discuss in the closed session. But I have not been
extensively briefed, I want to stress, Senator, on all the
practices that have been undertaken here.
And I might, as a general point, just add, you know I just
recently left Iraq and was Ambassador there until only recently
and have just been back in the country 2 weeks. So this has
been a process of really total immersion, but the learning
curve has been extremely steep.
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. Mr. Ambassador, this morning's
paper indicated the State Department released hundreds of
documents related to your time in Honduras. This question, as
you know, was bound to come.
The Committee has not had a chance to review those
documents. I'm not sure that there's anything new in those
documents. But let me ask you a couple of questions about the
report.
According to the article, immediately after the House voted
to cut off funding to the Contra rebels, you sent a cable
expressing continued support for this policy. Were you
advocating continuing of some kind of aid to the Contras after
the congressional cut off of funds? What was the purpose of
this cable? I might go on to say The Washington Post describes
back-channel messages. Can you describe what this back channel
was as opposed to the normal State Department cable traffic
method?
Ambassador Negroponte. Senator, first and foremost, with
respect to the question of support for the Contras, whatever
activities I carried out, whatever courses of action I
recommended in Honduras were always entirely consistent with
applicable law at the time.
So if your question is whether I ever undertook any
activity or made any recommendation that was inconsistent with
legal prohibitions that existed at various times, known as the
Boland Amendment, I made every effort to scrupulously to comply
with that amendment.
Second, as far as the material is concerned, if I read the
story correctly--and I haven't had an opportunity to look at
the cables to which The Washington Post refers--but it sounds
to me like the same set of cables that was my chronological
file--my file of cables that I personally drafted which was
declassified and made available to the Foreign Relations
Committee prior to my hearings to be Ambassador to the United
Nations in 2001.
The Committee also reviewed this very same matter in
practically microscopic detail in 1989 when I was nominated to
be Ambassador to Mexico. And I think in both instances have
found that I had not carried out any improper behavior. And I
certainly believe that I was--my comportment was always in an
absolutely legal and entirely professional manner.
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. I thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
Chairman Roberts. For the record, all Committee Members
should know that the Foreign Relations Committee has supplied
the Committee with approximately 100 documents that we
recognize as a chronological file, as the Ambassador has
pointed out. And they will be available to all Members of this
Committee should any Member with to go over those documents.
In my personal view, I don't think there is any mystery
documents. I think this is the first time that--as a matter of
fact, the timing of it as sort of--I guess it's interesting to
me. But at any rate, all Members can have access to this file,
which has been made available to us by the Foreign Relations
Committee.
Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador, I want to stay with this human rights issue in
Honduras for a moment, because I've read all the reports and
the letters and the testimony regarding the human rights
practices there. And I will tell you when you compare what you
wrote and what you testified to what the CIA said and what the
Inter-American Court said and what the Honduras human rights
commissioner said, there is a very big gap. It is almost as if
you were an ambassador to a different country.
So let us, if we could, begin by having you reconcile what
is on the record with respect to these human rights practices
and what is so remarkably different about what the CIA said and
all of these other bodies who have looked at the period as
well.
Ambassador Negroponte. Thank you for your question,
Senator.
First of all, I don't think there is necessarily such a
large gap, certainly not----
Senator Wyden. Would you like me to review it, because I
can go case-by-case.
Ambassador Negroponte. [continuing.]----especially, with
regard to the CIA.
But let me just put Honduras in context. Now, we're talking
about history, really. It's something that, things had happened
24-25 years ago. But I think one has to understand that
Honduras was a country surrounded by trouble. There were civil
wars going on in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala.
The political freedom was relatively greater in Honduras
than it was in the neighboring countries. In fact, there were
refugees streaming to Honduras from those three countries. It
wasn't the other way around. It wasn't that Hondurans were
fleeing their country to their neighboring countries because of
political repression.
When I got to Honduras shortly thereafter, there was a
first democratic elections that had taken place in 9 years. And
there have been six such elections in the years that have
followed.
Honduras had a free labor movement. It had a free press.
Now, were there human rights abuses? Yes. And our human
rights reports--I have the 1984 report here right in front of
me--they talk about those things, about disappearances, about
arbitrary arrests, about defects in the administration of
justice in that country.
But I think if you look at it in the context of what was
happening in Central America at the time, I think Honduras'
record compared favorably with the neighboring countries.
And I would submit to you that improvements occurred during
the time of my tenure there, including an administration of
justice program, a revision of the penal code, and other
efforts to deal with human rights issues in that country.
Senator Wyden. With all due respect, Mr. Ambassador, that's
simply not responsive to my question. I mean, for example, in
1982 you wrote a letter to The New York Times: Honduras'
increasingly professional armed forces are dedicated to
defending the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the
country; they're publicly committed to civilian constitutional
rule.
The CIA, for example, said during that period the Honduran
military committed hundreds of human rights abuses since 1980,
many of which were politically motivated and officially
sanctioned. The Inter-American Court said the same thing. The
Honduran human rights commissioner said the same thing.
I mean, I see a pattern essentially of you ducking the
facts. And what troubles me is not the idea of re-litigating
what happened in Central America 20 years ago; nobody wants to
do that, and I don't think that's constructive.
But we're making a call now about your judgment, and it
looks to me like you saw things through an Administration-
colored lens then. And what you need to do over the course of
today is convince me that when you brief the President, you
have this extraordinarily important duty that you're going to
make sure the facts get out there. And when I look at what you
said about human rights issues in the 1980s and I look at what
the CIA said and all these other objective parties, there's
just no way I can easily reconcile those differences.
So I want to give you another chance to be responsive to my
question. For example, if you tell me, you know, I should have
said more about these human rights issues in the early 1980s in
those country reports, in those letters and interviews you
gave, that's an indication--because I have certainly made loads
of mistakes over the years--that's responsive to what I'm
interested in seeing.
But I'm very troubled at this point and I want you to
reconcile the differences between what you said and wrote and
what these other parties have said.
Ambassador Negroponte. Just to pick up on one of your
examples there where you mentioned the CIA, I remember one of
the principal allegations of the CIA Inspector General's Report
was that I had suppressed or sought to suppress reporting on
human rights. And I was able to establish to the satisfaction
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that that was not the
case. And in fact, my deputy station chief from that time, who
was quoted as the source of that information, himself wrote the
Committee and said that that was absolutely incorrect. He wrote
to Senators Helms and Biden.
If I may, Senator, I think that sometimes when one tries to
reconstruct these situations 15, 20, 25 years after the fact,
some subjective judgments creep into these analyses that don't
necessarily stand up to scrutiny. I can tell you that I, in
good conscience, can sit here and tell you that I believe that
I called to Washington's attention what was going on in
Honduras. Within the first several months of my tenure there, I
asked the embassy to conduct a review of the administration of
justice system.
I had a meeting with the president of the country and the
chief of staff of the armed forces within the first year that I
was there and urged them to undertake urgent steps to review
the administration of justice, particularly with the way that
some of their police forces were treating terrorists. And we
ended up establishing a strong administration of justice
program in that country.
Senator Wyden. I'm just looking again at what you
testified--my time is up--but you said allegations of human
rights-related abuses are fewer than in previous years. The
Honduran government shows enhanced sensitivity to these
complaints. That's what you said in 1984. And I will tell you--
I'm going to explore this further on other rounds--but the
point really is if you disagreed with the CIA, that's fine. But
all of these other objective analysts said the same thing, Mr.
Ambassador. And I hope in the course of today you can convince
me that when you brief the President, the President's going to
get all the facts. And I will tell you I am not convinced that
that's the case as of now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Roberts. Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome,
Ambassador, to you and your family. Mr. Ambassador, we need a
Director of National Intelligence who will tell a President
what a President may not want to hear, but what he needs to
hear. We've too often seen heads of the intelligence community
exaggerate or misrepresent or misstate intelligence to support
the policy preferences of the White House. We saw this with
Bill Casey, who, a bipartisan Iran-Contra Report concluded had
``misrepresented or selectively used available intelligence to
support the policy that he''--Bill Casey--``was promoting.''
Now, that was the finding of a very bipartisan and a very
distinguished Iran-Contra Commission. Did you agree with the
Iran-Contra Report's conclusion about Bill Casey's
misrepresenting intelligence?
Ambassador Negroponte. Sir, I'm not sure I was focused on
that issue at the time.
Senator Levin. Were you involved in his thinking and
conclusions relative to the Contras?
Ambassador Negroponte. Well, of course, I knew Director
Casey and met with him on numerous occasions, including when he
visited Honduras. But, as you may know, by the time the Iran-
Contra situation developed, I had already moved on from
Honduras in May 1985 and taken on my new responsibilities as
Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs.
So I was not in a position dealing with Central America at
the time the Iran-Contra scandal developed.
Senator Levin. More recently, George Tenet also was engaged
in exaggerations and misstatements when he said, for instance,
publicly that Iraq had ``provided training in poisons and gases
to two al-Qa'ida associates,'' which was close to what the
President was saying publicly about the same issue. But the
underlying intelligence said that that reporting was
contradictory and was from sources of varying reliability.
Judge Silberman explained recently in talking about his
report that, ``The intelligence community was resistant to
notions that there was an important connect between Saddam and
al-Qa'ida or terrorism,'' and yet you had the Director, the
DCI, talking about Iraq ``providing training in poisons and
gasses to al-Qa'ida associates.''
My question is this: Are you troubled by that kind of a
public statement of Director Tenet which differs or differed
from the underlying intelligence relative to the connection
between al-Qa'ida and Saddam Hussein?
Ambassador Negroponte. Senator, let me try to answer you
question this way. And I think it goes back to the question
that Senator Wyden was putting to me earlier. I'm an
experienced foreign policy professional. As a junior officer, I
was a political reporting officer. I don't know how many
hundreds----
Senator Levin. Given our time problem, I'm just wondering
whether you could give a shorter answer.
Ambassador Negroponte. Well, I'm just going to--OK. My
punchline is, I believe in calling things the way I see them.
And I believe that the President deserves from his Director of
National Intelligence and from the intelligence community
unvarnished truth as I best understand it.
Senator Levin. That's critically important because it's not
been the case. When the DCI said that something was a slam dunk
which was not a slam dunk, even given the underlying classified
intelligence, that was not giving the President the unvarnished
truth.
Now, you're not responsible for what Tenet said, but your
assurance here that you will do that is important.
There's another aspect of unvarnished truth here, though,
and that is that if you conclude that policymakers are making
public statements that differ from the classified intelligence,
what action will you take? And I want to just give you a couple
recent examples.
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, a single uncorroborated
report alleged that the lead 9/11 hijacker, Mohammed Atta, had
met in Prague in April 2001 with an Iraqi intelligence officer
named al-Ani. On December 9, 2001, Vice President Cheney said
that the Prague meeting had been ``pretty well confirmed,''
although it had never been confirmed. On September 8, 2002,
Vice President Cheney was asked if the CIA thought the report
of the meeting was credible, and he said it was credible.
But in fact, as early as late spring of 2002, long before
that statement, the intelligence community was skeptical that
the meeting had taken place. In June of 2002, the CIA issued a
then-classified report that said that the information about the
meeting was contradictory.
It now turns out that in January 2003--now that's still
before the war--that the CIA published a then-classified report
that said the following: ``Some information asserts that Atta
met with al-Ani. But''--and these are the key words--``the most
reliable reporting to date casts doubt on that possibility.''
Now, that language was just declassified at my request within
the last week by the CIA.
So you have the CIA, in its classified assessment, saying
that the most reliable reporting to date casts doubt on that
possibility. But yet you have the top policymakers saying that
that meeting, we believe, took place.
My question to you is this: What would you do if you were
DNI at the time that kind of a public statement were made, if
you believed that it went beyond the classified intelligence?
Ambassador Negroponte. I think you're raising a
hypothetical.
Senator Levin. No, that's a real one.
Ambassador Negroponte. But looking to the facts here,
Senator, it seems to me that everything we've gone through in
these last months--the 9/11 Report, the WMD Commission Report,
the reports that you have done--are to look at ways in which we
can correct and reform and improve the modus operandi of the
intelligence community in order to avoid these kinds of
situations being repeated.
I would, first of all, do my utmost to make sure that the
right intelligence is presented to the President, the Vice
President, the Cabinet members and our armed forces and the
Congress.
Senator Levin. And if you believed an erroneous statement
was made by a top policymaker to the public, what would you do?
Ambassador Negroponte. Well, I think that, first of all,
given an opportunity to comment beforehand on the correctness
or not of the statement, and if I had information that
contradicted what was in a draft Presidential speech, I would
seek to ensure that that incorrect information did not find its
way into a Presidential or----
Senator Levin. And if it did?
Ambassador Negroponte. Well, you know, we have to cross
that bridge, Senator. But I believe that we've got to work to
establish objective intelligence. And the Intelligence Reform
Act deals with a number of mechanisms designed to do that.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Chairman Roberts. Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, and welcome,
Ambassador.
I believe very firmly in the concept of the Director of
National Intelligence. I first introduced legislation having to
do with it in 2002.
So I'm at last pleased that we are there where we are
today. Having said that, I'm concerned that the legislation is
not strong enough. And so I'd like to ask you some questions.
The recent WMD Commission Report highlighted the dead-bang
failures of the intelligence community that led up to the war
in Iraq. We discussed some of these yesterday and I won't go
into them in this setting. But the other major finding of the
report is that in critical areas intelligence should be
informing major decisions by senior policymakers--for example,
Iran and North Korea.
Now, the intelligence just isn't there, according to this
report. And I would add that, even if we had intelligence, I
doubt that it would be believed by many of us or by the
international community. I think the American public deserves
some unclassified answers as to how you intend to develop the
needed intelligence and the credibility to use it so that it
will be believed.
Ambassador Negroponte. Well, Senator, the law prescribes a
number of approaches to this. And as I said earlier in my
testimony, I'm not ready to give you a detailed blueprint. But
there are, obviously, guideposts with respect to analytical
integrity, with respect to objectivity, with respect to the
approach of creating a National Counterterrorism Center, which
will be an all-source center that tries to integrate the work
of the many different agencies involved in dealing with that
issue. It also talks about the possibility of establishing a
non-proliferation center.
And the WMD Commission also makes a number of detailed
recommendations, some 75 in all. And those are now being
studied carefully at the White House and the President has set
a 90-day timetable for a response to those recommendations.
So I would expect that shortly after being confirmed, I'll
be in a position to come to the Committee with some specific
ideas for you as to how I propose to deal with these questions.
Senator Feinstein. I must say, I'm a bit taken aback by the
vagueness of your answer. I'm rather surprised by it, because
it would seem to me that by now--and you said you've read these
reports--you must have some concept of what needs to be done.
And it's not just the setting up of a center, I believe. I
don't think that is going to change much.
Ambassador Negroponte. Well, here are some of the things
we're talking about, Senator. Of course, one of them is
developing a sense of community. Another is to make sure that
we don't rely only on intelligence from one agency, but get the
best possible benefit from all 15 different members of the
intelligence community. We're talking about red cell analysis
and alternative analysis.
I mean, these approaches are all laid out there. But what
I'm saying is the specific mechanisms as to how we're going to
carry out all these different ideas have yet to be fully
developed.
Senator Feinstein. OK, well, that takes care of two of my
other questions. Let me quote from one of your answers in the
pre-hearing questions.
``The Secretary of Defense has significant discretion over
the JMIP and TIARA, whereas the DNI has control over the
national intelligence program. This creates natural tensions.
The DNI can participate in budget development of JMIP and TIARA
and is to be consulted by the Secretary of Defense with respect
to any funds transfer or reprogramming under JMIP.'' And then
you go on to say, ``I would expect to exercise these budget
authorities.''
So my question really is, how would you proceed? This
morning, as I came in, I was listening to PBS. There was some
discussion over the fact that the defense community may be
realigning to try to prevent any loss of authority in this
area.
And we know it's a very sensitive area. I hope that this--
and my intention certainly is that this be a very powerful
position, that you be able to use the budget authority and the
statutory authority to its fullest strength. So could you
comment more fully on that answer to the question, please?
Ambassador Negroponte. Thank you, Senator. I mean, as you
mention, according to the legislation, I do have enhanced
powers relating to budgetary, to personnel and acquisition
matters, among others. And, in addition, when the President
announced my nomination he said he would fully back me and the
new role of the DNI. And you may recall that he made specific
reference to my role in determining the national intelligence
budget.
So I will seek to make the fullest possible use of these
authorities. And as regards some of the discussion that has
been put forward about the Defense Department--and I think
yesterday there was a reference to an effort to bring together
the different intelligence components of the Pentagon and have
them all report through Under Secretary Cambone with regard to
dealing with the DNI, I see my authority under the law, given
my responsibilities for determining the national intelligence
budget, in no way will preclude my ability to deal directly
with such agencies as the National Security Agency, the
National Reconnaissance Office and so forth.
And also, as I think I mentioned to you when we met
privately, I've met with Secretary Rumsfeld. We've agreed that
we will meet on a regular basis to go over these issues. I've
also seen Budget Director Bolten. And I'm confident I can count
on his strong support in these matters.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. With respect to chapter 13 of
the----
Chairman Roberts. Senator, the time has expired. We will go
to a second round.
Senator Feinstein. I beg your pardon. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Chairman Roberts. Senator Snowe.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that my
prepared statement be made a part of the Record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Snowe follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Olympia J. Snowe,
U.S. Senator from Maine
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador Negroponte, it is indeed a privilege to have you here
this morning and I want to thank you personally for once again stepping
forward to serve the Nation and taking on the tremendously complex role
of leading the reform of our intelligence community.
Truly, these are historic and perilous times for the Nation and
your nomination comes with many questions about how you will address
the challenges and opportunities the intelligence community faces.
Indeed, I cannot recall a time when a nominee has come before the
Senate with the entire community they have been nominated to lead in
the midst of such sweeping transformation. As you well know, the
transformation you will be charged with overseeing carries with it the
future security of this Nation.
Because we still know very little about our Nation's most dangerous
adversaries, you will be responsible for ensuring that the community
has the collection and analytic expertise required to confront our
greatest challenges no matter from which quarter they appear. While
many are concerned about the re-emergence of a regional peer competitor
in the Northern Pacific, we obviously still face the scourge of
international terrorism, international criminal organizations and other
transnational threats. And, of course, there remains the perplexing
problem of gathering intelligence against closed societies such as Iran
and North Korea--so called ``hard'' targets.
In the past three years, there have been four major investigations
that have concluded that the time has come for significant reform in
the intelligence community--two of them by this Committee. In December
2002, the primary recommendation of the Joint Inquiry into the
Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 was that Congress should amend
the National Security Act of 1947 to create a statutory Director of
National Intelligence to be the President's principal advisor on
intelligence with the full range of management, budgetary, and
personnel responsibilities needed to make the entire U.S. Intelligence
Community operate as a coherent whole.
Last July, this Committee issued its Report on the U.S.
Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq that
found that although the Director of Central Intelligence was supposed
to act as head of both the CIA and the intelligence community, for the
most part he acted only as the head of the CIA to the detriment of the
intelligence product provided to national policymakers.
Later that month, the 9/11 Commission issued their report on the
terrorist attacks and also recommended that the current position of
Director of Central Intelligence should be replaced by a National
Intelligence Director with two main areas of responsibility: to oversee
national intelligence centers and to manage the national intelligence
program and oversee the agencies that contribute to it.
Finally, just two weeks ago, the President's Commission on the
Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of
Mass Destruction found the Intelligence Community is ``fragmented,
loosely managed, and poorly coordinated; the 15 intelligence
organizations are a `community' in name only and rarely act with a
unity of purpose.'' They also concluded that the Director of National
Intelligence will make our intelligence efforts better coordinated,
more efficient, and more effective.
Clearly, with this many investigations and Commissions arriving at
the same conclusions time and again, for the sake and safety of the
Nation we must begin the transformation of the fifteen agencies tasked
with collecting and analyzing intelligence into a single, coordinated
community with the agility to predict, respond to and overcome the
threats our Nation will face. Your confirmation is the first step in
executing this extremely complex undertaking and time is of the
essence.
You have the distinct privilege and solemn obligations that come
with being the first Director of National Intelligence. How you lead,
how you manage the community, how you shape your role, the
relationships you create with the various agencies and their leaders
will not only determine how effective you are in reforming our
intelligence community but very likely how each of your successors will
approach the oversight of our intelligence community as well.
As we discussed last week, I believe that one of your primary tasks
will be to energize the workforce and give them direction. We both
agree that our intelligence community professionals are the best in the
world and every day they toil tirelessly, often unrecognized, in the
shadows to keep this country safe. I believe they are eagerly looking
for strong leadership so they can move forward with the business of
securing the country.
It has been said that ``A leader takes people where they want to
go. A great leader takes people where they don't necessarily want to go
but ought to be.'' We need your great leadership skills as the first
Director of National Intelligence to break down the old rice bowls and
stove-pipes so that loyalty to an agency or an established bureaucracy
is replaced by the understanding that every agency and every employee
comprising the intelligence community is part of one team and that
team's goal is to secure America.
All this points to significant reforms in current personnel
policies--from recruitment and training to career progression and
assignments. We must develop a workforce that is adequately agile and
flexible to counter the myriad threats we face. The community must
recognize that the growing diversity of the threat requires a
commensurate growth in a diverse workforce. The mere act of recruiting
a diverse workforce will offer the ability for an organization to see
collection and analysis with fresh eyes as different ``frames of
reference'' are added to the workforce.
Finally, and again as we discussed the other day, while many are
ready to jump in and begin amending and changing the provisions of the
Intelligence Reform Act, I believe we must mind the ``law of unintended
consequences.'' I believe that you will need some time to work with the
law before you can tell what is working and what is not. Certainly, if
you see areas that need immediate attention or further refinement, or
that make your authorities unworkable, we would expect you to come back
to us as quickly as possible so we can provide you the tools you need
to quickly and effectively reform the community.
Ambassador Negroponte, I firmly believe that you possess the
experience and leadership necessary to refocus our intelligence
community, so the intelligence products provided to national
policymakers are not only timely, but reflect the best judgment of the
entire of the intelligence community. I look forward to working with
you in the coming years as we shape our intelligence community into a
cohesive whole and as you define the role of Director of National
Intelligence. With a strong DNI and a focused intelligence team, our
Nation will be safer. Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Welcome, Ambassador Negroponte. And I am
going to thank you for once again stepping forward to serve our
Nation in this precedent-setting role that has responsibility
for overseeing a transformation, a sweeping transformation of
our intelligence community that carries with it the future
security of our country.
As everybody's indicated, and you've acknowledged in your
own statement, your leadership skills will be sorely tested as
the first director of this newly created agency, particularly
because you're going to have to break down the stovepipes and
the barriers that exist between and among all of the
intelligence agencies.
That was abundantly apparent in the more than four reports
that have been done over the last few years, the two regarding
9/11 and then the weapons of mass destruction-related
intelligence reports that were done by the Silberman-Robb
Commission, and also our Committee.
You'll have to break down those barriers and the loyalties
that each individual employee has to the agency or bureaucracy
and to replace that with an understanding that they now, as
part of their agencies, comprise an intelligence community
team, and that team's goal is to secure the security of
America.
So the real question is, in my mind, and many questions
that have been raised in respect to that ultimate goal in
creating that team that you've acknowledged in your statement
as well, that it is building teamwork, because we have so many
outstanding men and women who have put their lives on the front
line and display enormous professionalism and courage.
But I think the question is how you see your authority in
breaking down those barriers, solidifying your position. Even
the Silberman-Robb Report indicated that headstrong agencies
will try to run around and over the DNI, that these agencies
have an almost perfect record of resisting external
recommendations. So the key is, number one, how you intend to
solidify your authority.
Some say that you're going to lack the command authority,
as a result of the legislation we passed. Maybe the ambiguity
and the gaps may be more positive than negative. On the other
hand it could be a negative if you don't have the ability to do
what you need to do--if we haven't given you the authority to
succeed. And we, obviously, will need to know that sooner
rather than later.
So first of all, how do you view your role in solidifying
your position? And if you lack the command authority as
directed under this legislation--obviously, I'd like to hear
your response to that--how will you direct the agencies to do
what you want them to do?
Ambassador Negroponte. Well, I think the law does give me
substantial authority. And even in areas where there might be
ambiguities, I think I've been encouraged by many of the people
that I've consulted with during these past 2 weeks to push the
envelope and use what authorities I believe I have to the
utmost.
And I think there's also been commentary to the effect that
I will need the support of the President. And he has, in
announcing my nomination, made public assurances of supporting
me in these new functions.
But there are budgetary authorities that we talked about
already. There are some personnel authorities, there are
procurement authorities. And there's a whole range of
instruments that I think are available or can be developed.
The other point I'd like to make, Senator, is I'm no
stranger to operating within either the U.S. Government in
general or within the intelligence community in particular. As
an Ambassador I have had five CIA stations under my authority,
I've had Defense attaches, and most recently in Iraq I worked
extremely closely with General George Casey, the MNFI
Commander, in what I think was a real model of civilian-
military cooperation even to the point where General Casey and
I, the Embassy and MNFI, were issuing unprecedented joint
mission statements.
So I think that by developing relationships, by
establishing trust between the key players here, I think this
issue can be moved forward.
Senator Snowe. Well, I guess the question is, how long?
And I know you mentioned that we can't wait another decade
to fix this community. And the breadth of failure, you know,
frankly, was inconceivable, I think, to all of us. And, you
know, we don't want to look in the rearview mirror.
But on the other hand, I think, knowing that and given what
has also happened in this unprecedented failure, that we need
to make sure that we get it right sooner rather than later.
So you know and understand we have to adopt a wait-and-see
attitude for a while with respect to this legislation, with
respect to the kind of authority you've been given or haven't
been given depending on how broad it is. The question is, how
long do you believe we have before we would have to go back and
fix the legislation if it's necessary?
Ambassador Negroponte. Well, I have a two-part answer to
that.
First of all, how long in terms of starting to make some of
these changes: My answer is right away. As soon as I'm
confirmed, I want to set about setting up this office and start
making some of the changes and adjustments and adoption of
different approaches that have been recommended. So I'd like to
move out quickly. I have no personal interest in prolonging
that aspect of the job.
As far as if or when we might come up with some suggestions
as to amendments, I think I'd have to reserve on that at the
moment because I think it would be good to get a bit of a body
of experience.
But I can assure you that we won't hesitate. If we think
some kind of a legislative fix is required, technical or
otherwise, we will be back to the Committee promptly on that.
Senator Snowe. So you wouldn't hesitate to come back, you
know, within the year?
Ambassador Negroponte. Well, that certainly sounds like a
reasonable period of time to me. But, again, I just wouldn't
want to be held to a specific timetable.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Chairman Roberts. Senator DeWine.
Senator DeWine. Ambassador, we welcome you. We welcome your
family.
Thanks for being here. I think the President's made a good
choice. And we look forward to working with you in the years
ahead.
As you and I discussed in my office a few days ago, I was
one of the ones who felt that this bill did not give you enough
authority. And I remain concerned about that.
But I think we all do realize that ultimately your success
or failure is not only going to depend on what you do, but it's
going to depend on how much authority the President of the
United States gives you. And I think that no matter how we
write the legislation, no matter what words were down on paper,
ultimately it's going to be whether the President backs you up
in these turf wars that are bound to occur.
Let me ask you to follow up on a question that you answered
a moment ago in regard to this report that came out. It was a
Time Magazine report in regard to Mr. Cambone.
This report says, ``The Defense Department's Intelligence
Chief, Stephen Cambone, is having aides draft a previously
undisclosed charter for his office that would consolidate his
power as the DNI's main point of contact for the Pentagon's
myriad intelligence agencies, which consumes some 80 percent of
the estimated. . .''--and then it tells about the intelligence
budget.
Then it says: `` `Cambone would be like a mini-DNI,' says a
senior intelligence official.''
You've answered that. I guess what you're saying is you
would not feel constrained that you have to go through Mr.
Cambone to deal with people in the Pentagon?
Ambassador Negroponte. That's correct.
And specifically, when you talk about the NSA or the
Geospatial Agency, I've got to learn a whole new alphabet soup
here,
Senator DeWine. There's a lot of them.
Ambassador Negroponte. In any case, the various agencies
that benefit from what is called the national intelligence
program, and since that responsibility is assigned to the DNI,
I think the language in the law is quite strong. It says
``shall determine'' that budget. Well, clearly I'm going to
have to have a relationship with those agencies. I can't see
any other way of doing it.
Senator DeWine. Well, and I assume you mean this is a
direct relationship. This is not a relationship that is going
through someone. You need to have the ability to deal directly
with them, and not through a conduit.
Ambassador Negroponte. Right. Yes.
Senator DeWine. I mean, you don't have to ask somebody to
coordinate this. We're not looking at something here in the
Defense Department, are we, where you have to clear something
with somebody every time you do it, are we?
Ambassador Negroponte. That would sound rather impractical
to me. And that's not the way I would expect to proceed.
Senator DeWine. Well, it's not only impractical, I think
it's very dangerous.
Ambassador Negroponte. Having said that, Senator, if--I
certainly don't want to suggest----
Senator DeWine. I'm not asking you to pick a fight today,
Mr. Ambassador. You know, you've been in the diplomatic corps
long enough; I'm not going to put you on the spot. But I just
want to express this Member's opinion that that would be a
problem. I'll let it go at that.
Let me ask you about the FBI. What do you envision, based
on the statute and your reading of the statute that we have
written and your anticipation of your new job, what your
relationship with the FBI will be?
Ambassador Negroponte. Well, first, they have an
intelligence component that is in part answerable to me. So I
believe that's one point.
Second, I think that when we're talking about trying to
integrate the foreign and domestic intelligence aspects of the
situation, clearly we're going to have to work extremely
closely with the Department of Justice, the FBI and the
Department of Homeland Security.
Some of that effort is already ongoing in the form of the
National Counterterrorism Center. But as to more specifics as
to exactly how Director Mueller and I are going to work
together, I think that's something that he and I are going to
have to develop together.
Senator DeWine. Have you had an opportunity to talk to
Director Mueller about this in any detail yet?
Ambassador Negroponte. Not in any detail, but we have met
and I'm also pleased to say that he and I have worked together
before when I was Ambassador to Mexico, as a matter of fact,
and he was the Associate Attorney General for Criminal Matters.
Senator DeWine. Let me ask you about your experience in
Iraq and what you learned there that might be of relevance to
your new position. I would even expand it beyond just your own
personal experience in Iraq, but going back to the lead-up to
the war and what we learned as far as some of the intelligence
failures leading up to the war. Reflect on both. They are two
separate issues.
Ambassador Negroponte. Two points I would offer on that,
Senator. First, with respect to the current situation in Iraq,
my experience on the ground and to the extent that I've been
able to follow it, the intelligence community is actually--
their work comes together quite well in Iraq. I think there
have been some examples of excellent cooperation between
various elements of the intelligence community, which has
resulted, for example, in the capture or killing of a number of
the al-Qa'ida and Zarqawi associates. So I think that there
have been some positive achievements there, although I think I
a lot of work still remains to be done, especially on better
understanding the nature of the other aspects of the insurgency
other than al-Qa'ida, namely the former regime elements, the
Saddamists and so forth.
On the intelligence prior to the war, I think I, like
everybody else, was surprised at the virtual lack of any
supporting information that was developed after the war took
place and the Iraq Survey Group's Report. I certainly, when I
was Ambassador to the United Nations and making whatever
arguments or whatever case that I was instructed to make to the
Security Council, I certainly believed most of the
intelligence.
So I think I would agree with particularly the WMD
Commission's Report that I think diagnoses that Iraq failure in
great detail, and we've got to do our darndest to avoid a
repetition of that kind of situation.
Senator DeWine. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Roberts. Senator Hagel.
Senator Hagel. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that a statement that I have be
included for the record.
Chairman Roberts. Without objection it is so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hagel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Hagel,
U.S. Senator from Nebraska
America's first Director of National Intelligence faces an enormous
challenge. He must re-energize the leaders of an intelligence community
that have endured the intense scrutiny of numerous investigations. The
DNI will need to harness the expertise, experience and commitment of
the 15 different intelligence agencies to achieve the common goal of
securing our Nation. And the Director must do all of this while the
threat of terrorist attacks remains real. The President has nominated
an extremely capable and experienced professional who will set the
standard for all future Directors: Ambassador John Negroponte.
I have worked closely with Ambassador Negroponte over the years and
know of his depth of knowledge and wide experience on international
security issues. His distinguished service as our Ambassador to the
United Nations will give him the credibility we need in the world
arena. He further proved his immense ability as Ambassador to Iraq,
where his efforts were critical to the successful Iraqi elections. He
understands the challenges of the 21st century and the magnitude of
threats to America and the world. He has the ability to lead an
effective, integrated intelligence community.
I look forward to supporting Ambassador Negroponte in his efforts
to build a strong and capable intelligence community for our country.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Ambassador Negroponte, welcome. I think Senator Stevens had
it right when he referred to you this morning as one of the
most distinguished public servants of our time. You have been.
You continually avail yourself to impossible tasks. And we
appreciate very much what you and your family have agreed to
here to step into this critically important role, a role that
will, in fact, define the intelligence community in this
country for many years.
Your actions, your leadership, how you interpret and how
you define this new law will, in fact, set a precedent for
future intelligence community leaders. It is an important, big
job which you understand and you are up to. So thank you for
agreeing to do this.
You have had an opportunity to review the Silberman-Robb
Report and it has been brought up here this morning. I would be
interested in your thoughts about the challenge that you are
going to have--and this was part of the report that they
issued--in regard to information-sharing in the intelligence
community.
Here you will be dealing with 15 agencies, all important,
all with their own cultures, dynamics, responsibilities. How do
we integrate that information and intelligence? Have you given
some thought to that?
Ambassador Negroponte. Senator, first of all, it is a
crucial issue. And I think it goes to the question of creating
a unified intelligence community. And I think that that's one
of the principal purposes of this new legislation.
The Silberman-Robb Report has some 75 or so
recommendations. And, as I mentioned earlier, they are being
studied now by the White House, both by the National Security
Council and the Homeland Security Council. And the President
has given them 90 days to come up with a response to those
recommendations.
But within them are a number of them that make sense to me
and address the question you raise with respect to information
technologies, with respect to making more information about
sources available across the intelligence community, so you
don't have a situation sometimes when intelligence reports are
being circulated, but the other receiving agencies don't have
enough understanding or appreciation for the source and its
reliability.
There are a number of different steps that are being
proposed, and we're going to take a hard look at that. And I
certainly expect to move on whatever recommendations are
adopted fairly promptly.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Also included in the Silberman Report was a reference, as
was the case in other reports--and this Committee has dealt
with this issue as well--the issue of alternative analysis--
allowing policymakers outside the regular, mainstream
intelligence community analysis process--which, obviously, you
need to be aware of that and may well even instigate and
initiate something within your organized intelligence community
for alternative analysis.
Senator Hagel. Have you given any thought to that issue?
Ambassador Negroponte. Yes, sir. I think it's important. I
think there are mechanisms that can be established both within
the DNI and perhaps in some of the other agencies, as well,
related to that. And there is quite emphasis on it in the
Silberman-Robb Report about the importance of open-source
analysis. Clandestine intelligence reporting isn't the only
source of wisdom and I think a lot of attention ought to be
paid to that.
But, yes, I think in terms of providing the best possible
intelligence product to the President, one has to take a
holistic look at this issue.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
In our previous conversations, Mr. Ambassador, we've talked
about one of the challenges that you are going to have is to
not just integrate 15 agencies, to a certain extent, but it's
also--it's my word not yours--reenergize and strengthen what
has happened to our intelligence agencies over the last couple
of years--the studies, the reviews, the critiques, the
failures.
And we understand--you certainly do--that structures are
important, but it's relationships and people and culture that's
most important.
And you're going to have a big job of putting all that back
together. These agencies have been hollowed out. Their sense of
themselves, their sense of purpose, their self-confidence--not
all--but there has been, I think, some erosion of a sense of
their mission and their purpose. And they're going to need some
intensive work in the area of bolstering their own personal
commitments, it seems to me, and as an agency.
And I'm not talking about cheerleading and pep rallies, but
I'm talking about harnessing that vitality and bringing that
vitality back to where any organization has to have it in order
to get peak performance from its people.
And you've thought about that. Would you care to share with
us your thoughts?
Ambassador Negroponte. Thank you, Senator.
I have thought about it. And I couldn't agree with you more
that it's extremely important, not only in and of itself,
because we need to have a re-energized and positive and
forward-looking intelligence community, but also because I
think there are many individuals in these different agencies
who have done absolutely outstanding work for our Nation, and I
think that work needs to be recognized and acknowledged and
remembered.
As I mentioned earlier, I've worked very closely with the
CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the NSA in my recent
positions. And they have done a lot of extremely valuable work,
whatever some of the serious shortcomings that have been
brought to our attention during the past couple of years.
So, yes, I want to work very hard on that. I think it's
probably one of the most important aspects of the job that I'm
about to undertake, if confirmed. And while we may not have pep
rallies, I certainly do want to go out to visit these different
agencies and have town hall meetings and talk to the people out
there.
And to the extent that it's within the limits of my energy,
we'll try to get to know as many of these fine individuals as
possible.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Chairman Roberts. Senator Chambliss.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador Negroponte, on behalf of all Americans, I thank
you for your great public service. You have been a stalwart
from the standpoint of taking tough jobs and achieving great
success at every level that you have been involved from a
public service standpoint. And having had the opportunity to
see you and work with you firsthand, both at the United Nations
and also in Iraq, I'm just very thankful that the President has
chosen wisely in selecting you to head this very difficult
position.
As I indicated to you in a previous conversation, I think
trying to find the right person with the right background was
difficult on the part of the President. And you are one of the
very, very few Americans, I think, that possessed the public
service background, the intelligence background, as well as
having the people skills necessary to carry out this very
difficult position.
So we look forward to continuing to work with you.
I was pleased to hear in your comments that you don't see
the intelligence game as a zero-sum game, and particularly this
position, that will require the DNI to wrestle away the budget
issue as well as the process issue from other agencies,
particularly the CIA and DoD. And I think you're exactly right
about that. This is not a zero-sum game.
As you know, Senator Ben Nelson and I have been advocating
a single DoD point of contact for the DNI through a four-star
unified commander for intelligence that we're calling INTCOM.
And I see now where Secretary Rumsfeld has picked up on this
notion, as Senator DeWine mentioned, and has recently named
Under Secretary Dr. Stephen Cambone to serve as your single
point of contact, at least for the interim period of time, at
the Department of Defense.
How do you foresee the DNI working with the Department of
Defense? And what are your thoughts about working with a single
INTCOM commander who could coordinate the vast intelligence
capabilities within the DoD to support your efforts?
Ambassador Negroponte. Well, first of all, Senator, Senator
Rumsfeld and I have agreed that we will meet frequently to
discuss intelligence issues, so I would expect cooperation at
that level in the first place, and certainly will cooperate
with Mr. Cambone.
And even though he's a focal point within the Defense
Department, the way I read the statute, which gives me
authorities to recommend or determine the budget with respect
to the NRO, the NGA and the NSA, it seems to me that, in
addition to working with the Secretary and Mr. Cambone, I will
want to work directly with those agencies as well.
But coming back to Senator Hagel's point, I think these
things come down to relationships, investing time and effort
and understanding into each other's point of view. And I look
forward to working with the Department of Defense in addition
to all the other agencies in carrying out my job.
Senator Chambliss. What about as far as the concept of an
INTCOM commander there? Do you see any problems if that comes
about, working with a single point of contact with the eight
Defense Department agencies?
Ambassador Negroponte. Well, I'd have to study that
legislation more carefully and get back to you on that,
Senator. I haven't had a chance to look at it carefully.
Although if memory serves me correctly, I believe some in the
Administration have raised concerns with the creation of such a
position.
Senator Chambliss. And actually some have raised concerns
and some are supportive, so we're still in the negotiating
process, Mr. Ambassador.
I'm very concerned about the rebuilding of our HUMINT
capability, as well as protecting our morale of the CIA and our
Defense Department case officers in the field as we continue to
reform the intelligence community with the formation of the
DNI.
What are your general views on the State of HUMINT, both
overt collectors like our military attaches as well as our CIA
covert capabilities? And what's been your relationship with
both CIA case officers as well as DIA case officers over the
years, relative to HUMINT collection?
Ambassador Negroponte. I think to the extent that we can
comment about this in public session, Senator, first of all,
I've had extensive relationships with both the CIA and the DIA
in the field, so I feel that I'm quite well acquainted with
their work.
I was Ambassador to the Philippines from 1993 to 1996,
which was a time during which the budgets were being cut for
intelligence purposes, and I remember the station there being
cut by about 50 percent when I was there. And it was an ironic
situation, because it was just at the time that we captured
some people who were connected with the World Trade Center
bombing and who had developed a plot to assassinate the Pope
and hijack 12 airliners in the Pacific. You may remember that
case, the Ramzi Yousef case.
And there we were, with the Filipinos capturing those
individuals just at the same time that we were reducing our
HUMINT capabilities.
So I think it needs to be strengthened. I know there are
plans afoot to do that. And I'm fully supportive of that
effort. And it's one of the efforts that I certainly will be
devoting a lot of attention to.
Senator Chambliss. Mr. Ambassador, thank you. And we look
forward to completing your confirmation process and to
continuing to work with you in this very difficult, but
exciting position that you're going to be assuming.
Chairman Roberts. Senator Hatch.
Senator Hatch. Welcome to the Committee, Mr. Ambassador,
Madam Negroponte. We appreciate both of you. I've known you for
a long time. I spent some time with you in Honduras way back
when. And I agree with everything Senator Stevens had to say
about you. There's no question you're one of the finest public
servants we've had.
I believe you've been confirmed by the Senate eight times?
Ambassador Negroponte. If you confirm me this time, sir, it
will be eight.
Senator Hatch. It'll be eight.
Ambassador Negroponte. Yes, sir.
Senator Hatch. Well, then, seven times. It seems to me we
don't even need this hearing. But we do need it, because we
need to discuss some of these matters, of course.
But I'm pleased, Mr. Chairman, that you moved as fast as
possible to bring and schedule this confirmation hearing,
following the actions we took last fall to establish the
position of Director of National Intelligence. And so we've
told the nominee now and in our own meetings his tenure will
define the way we need to go to use our intelligence community
to its fullest to address the various threats that still loom
over us and around us.
So I welcome my old friend John Negroponte, who has served
this country for more than 40 years in some of the most
challenging international situations we have faced. And I'm
grateful for that service. In my opinion, you've already met
your missions admirably. And I want to thank you for choosing
once again to assume a very, very large challenge.
And I'll make only two points. One is that this is the
toughest job you're ever going to have. And I realize I'm
saying this to someone who has just come back after serving as
Ambassador to Baghdad.
The President wouldn't have chosen you if he didn't think
you could do it. And if confirmed, I think you need--please
work with this Committee, as you have said you will, and I
assure you of my support.
Number two, Usama bin Ladin is not sitting wherever he is
because Congress and the President have just created the
position of Director of National Intelligence.
Too often, we delude ourselves in Washington by believing
that bureaucratic realignment is the policy solution. The
bureaucratic shift can only support the policy solution. And
that's what you do with this position. What you do with this
position is what will make bin Ladin sweat, and that will
hopefully lead to his ultimate elimination from the world
scene.
Now, you know from your years of being a top consumer of
intelligence what the value of intelligence is and can be.
You've handled, I think, at least five chiefs of station. And
that's big-time stuff; there's no question about it.
You know from your last post about the complexities of the
various threats that we face. And now you must use your
position to raise the level of analytic and operational quality
of our intelligence community to new levels. You will be
leading thousands of superb professionals with experienced
leaders like Porter Goss, and working with them all to achieve
a level of security that the American public deserves and that
our enemies should fear.
There's no question that we will support you, in my
opinion, on this Committee. And I certainly support you
strongly, knowing you as well as I do.
I found it kind of interesting, some of the questions about
you might be ducking issues. I've never seen you duck an issue
the whole time I've been around you. And, frankly, you've been
in some of the hottest spots on earth, and especially with
regard to your work in Honduras.
I think it's important to point out, if I recall it
correctly, you and your wonderful wife have adopted five
Honduran children. Is that correct?
Ambassador Negroponte. Yes, sir.
Senator Hatch. That's during this time that others are
saying that you should have stopped a human rights problem. I
think that shows the compassion that you had for the Honduran
people and for life in general, for families in general. And I
commend you for it. And as far as I can see, you've done a
really good job with them too.
I was on the Iran-Contra Committee and I have to say that
was a very trying and difficult time in all of our lives. There
were people on both sides, very sincere, very good people, very
strong people, very educated people, very expert people, people
who understood intelligence and I think people who had good
points that they could make for both sides.
But you always went down the middle, as far as I was
concerned. You always stood up for your positions, with which
some disagreed, but you always were honest and straightforward
about your positions.
Let me just ask you this. In your response to questions
from the Committee, you indicated your familiarity with the
tools provided under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 to provide for education and training
for intelligence community personnel. Now, this was in response
to a growing consensus that there is a need to develop
community-wide education and training to instill modern
doctrine to create so-called jointness across specializations.
I have, in the past, supported the need to institutionalize
a formal education structure toward this end. Now, have you
given any consideration, or have you had a chance to give any
consideration, to how exactly you would address the need for
proper training of intelligence community personnel across the
various specializations?
And do you believe there's a need for the teaching and
training under the new doctrines? And if so, how do you propose
to institutionalize addressing these needs?
Ambassador Negroponte. Thank you for your question,
Senator.
Definitely there needs to be focus on education. And there
are provisions in the law that mandate and require the DNI to
address those issues. I think one of the questions that's going
to arise is whether one looks at the creation of some separate,
free-standing national intelligence university, as the Robb-
Silberman Commission proposes, or is it a question of maybe
having someone overseeing the training efforts that take place
throughout the intelligence community and try to ensure that at
the various institutes, whether it's in the military or in the
CIA, that the training curriculum is standardized. But
definitely, we've got to look at the training aspect--
tradecraft, professionalism and so forth.
And the other point I would say, which, to me, as a career
Foreign Service officer, is extremely important, is we've got
to bolster the language and area training of our intelligence
community. I've looked at some of the statistics. I can't
remember them off the top of my head. But I do know that the
language skills, for example, in the Central Intelligence
Agency are substantially lower than those that you'd find in
the State Department, for example.
And I think those kinds of skills, in this day and age,
have got to be improved.
Senator Hatch. Thank you very much.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Roberts. Senator Corzine.
Senator Corzine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me request
that my prepared statement be made a part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Corzine follows:]
Opening Statement of Senator Jon Corzine,
U.S. Senator from New Jersey
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman. Before I begin with
questions, I think it's worth recalling how we got to this historic
moment. The establishment of the Director of National Intelligence
would not have happened had it not been for the patriotism and passion
of some remarkable Americans.
Let me begin with the families of the victims of 9/11 who managed
to turn their grief into real, effective action. The Family Steering
Committee and, in particular, four 9/11 widows from my State who called
themselves the ``Jersey Girls'' fought for real answers. They pushed
for the creation of the 9/11 Commission, whose recommendations included
the position for which Mr. Negroponte has been nominated. They also
insisted that the Administration cooperate fully with the Commission as
it sought a full accounting of the terrorist attack. They did all this
for one reason: they wanted America to be safer than it was on the day
they lost their loved ones.
Those of us responsible for our Nation's intelligence, including
Members of Congress, owe them our deepest gratitude. Every step of the
way, they have reminded us why we are here--to protect America, to
safeguard American lives, to make sure 9/11 never happens again.
We also owe an enormous debt to the 9/11 Commission, led by Tom
Kean and Lee Hamilton. Their hard work, persistence, intellectual
honesty, and political neutrality brought about something truly
incredible: a national consensus. The Commission's meticulous and
thorough study of the events up to and including September 11 and its
wise and succinct recommendations gave us an understanding of the past
and a path forward. And, by involving the American people in their
deliberations, they also helped generate public support for much needed
reform. Without them, we would not be here today.
Senator Corzine. Let me welcome Ambassador Negroponte. And
let me also say that I think, for all of us, at least those
people I represent, we want to express our gratitude for your
long service to our Nation, particularly your most recent
efforts, both in Iraq and in the United Nations.
Also, I would be remiss if I didn't say one of the reasons
you're sitting here certainly flows from a lot of the
activities of people who come from my home State, Governor
Kean, in particular, with regard to the 9/11 Commission; but
maybe even more importantly, the families, some of whom were--
700 who lost their lives. And I commend them because I do think
this is the proper step in the direction that we're taking. And
I do believe that you have the experience and the opportunity
to really lead here.
But all that said, let me express a reservation that really
flows--my reservation--and I'm not going to change my view on
this--but much of the analysis that we've seen from the 9/11
Commission, now the WMD, from the reports of this Committee
itself, dealt with collection and analysis. It seems to me that
there is a third leg to that stool and it's the use of
intelligence and how that is presented.
I thought Senator Levin's recital of a series of issues and
intelligence that backed up the intelligence community's view
with regard to the Mohammad Atta meetings gets at the point.
Isn't the right answer--and I think you said crossing the
bridge when we got there was the ultimate answer if there were
public statements by senior public policymakers--isn't the
right answer going to the senior policymakers when there is
serious contradiction with the intelligence when we're making
advocacy for policy? Some of that could be done behind closed
doors, of course. Some can be done in Intelligence Committees
so that we're not making policy decisions with erroneous
decisions and we can avoid it.
But it seems to me that it is almost imperative that the
Director of National Intelligence--what's the term?--speak
truth to power or whatever the phrase is. It will be absolutely
a requirement that those contradictions in analyses are
presented in a way. Isn't that the response?
Ambassador Negroponte. And in answering Senator Levin, I
think in part at least, Senator, I was trying to go to that. I
was trying to say, from everything we've learned, from the
experience we've had in the past several years, we don't want a
repetition of this kind of situation. We don't want to have the
CURVEBALL situation again.
And one of the ways you're going to avoid it is to improve
the quality of the analytical product, make sure it's
comprehensive and lay the truth before the policymakers of our
country, and try to avert the kind of hypothesis he described.
Senator Corzine. Collection and analysis, the work and the
organization, which is going to be an enormous task. And I more
than believe you're up to that. But the fact is that even when
we come through with that process, sometimes there will be
strongly held opinions that are colored by selectivity, colored
by interpretation potentially.
And isn't it the job of the independent arbiter of
intelligence to make sure that the community that is most
responsible for assessing those knows that those contradictions
with what is said in public--and maybe we'll never ever have
that again; maybe because our collection and analysis will be
so good that no one will ever have preconceived or group-think
ideas come to fruition, that it will take--but if they do, will
it be the responsibility of the DNI to challenge that
privately?
I'm not asking for political confrontation.
Ambassador Negroponte. Yes, I have no problem whatsoever
with that. And I also, I believe, said in my statement that
intelligence is not a panacea, nor is it policy. But should the
DNI place before the President and other decisionmakers the
fullest and best possible analytical accounting that is
available and identify the gaps in knowledge and talk about
judgments as to reliability or unreliability and the various
gradations and all of that? Yes. It has to be put before the
decisionmakers.
Senator Corzine. I'll end here because I think this whole
issue of independent analysis, and making sure that the testing
of hypotheses and knowing where holes are and contradictory
perspectives on unknowables, leads to probabilistic analysis.
And if that is not practiced, we get into certainty. And I hope
that as time unfolds, this Committee and others will ask,
within those probabilistic kinds of analyses, these most
difficult questions. I think sometimes that has appeared to
have been missing.
Chairman Roberts. The Senator from Maryland, Senator
Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Ambassador, welcome to you and to your wife and to
your family.
We sure want whoever is going to be the head of the DNI to
be a success. And if you're confirmed, we want you to be a
success. And I think that's what the point of all the questions
are. And that's why we're interested in really the focus on how
will you get control of the intelligence agencies, do you have
authority, what will it take to ensure coordination and
cooperation, speak truth to power, and of course the background
on Honduras, which goes to speak truth to power.
Let me just tell you why I'm on the Committee. I'm here to
be a reformer and I'm here to be a transformer and to work with
the Executive Branch. Because I view the purpose of
intelligence is, number one, to prevent predatory attacks on
the United States, on our assets abroad, like our embassies--
and as a Foreign Service officer you know about how threatening
it is to our Foreign Service--and, of course, to our troops and
our allies, and then, of course, to support the warfighter.
We've had three different recommendations going back to
your job as being recommended by the 9/11 Commission. And
whatever conversations we have today and in the future, I'm
taking some of my questions from the 9/11 Commission, and also
our Senate report on the failure of finding weapons in Iraq.
So having said that, let me go first, though, to this
question of truth to power. Other colleagues have raised this
question, but I want to come at it from a different angle.
Again, you've been a professional, the guy at the beginning, as
the political person, to Ambassador. What would you see as your
job as the DNI to ensure that your subordinates are speaking
truth to power?
Because one of the problems we faced, for example, in the
Iraq weapons analysis was the so-called group-think. The
question was, number one, how would they speak truth to power?
If they have yellow flashing lights--like when Secretary Powell
was going before the U.N.--what mechanism or how would you,
number one, create the tone, the climate and actually
administrative mechanisms so that you're getting truth so that
you then can do the kind of job that needs to be done?
Ambassador Negroponte. First of all, I couldn't agree with
you more. I mean, truth to power is crucial. And we've got to
assure the objectivity and integrity of our intelligence
analyses. Senator, I see three key parts of my job. One is the
budgetary part; I think there are some important authorities in
the law on that. I see, second, the question of trying to
mobilize and promote a sense of community rather than the
different stovepipes. And third, and perhaps one that goes to
my own background and skills the most, has to do with the
analytical product.
So I guess the first thing I'd say to you there, in terms
of how I would go about this, is I plan to devote quite a bit
of attention to how our analytical efforts are organized and
looking personally into ways by which we can assure that we get
the best possible analytical product, whether it's from the
regular analysts or from the red cells in the alternative
analysis and so forth.
And, second--and I haven't had an opportunity to mention
this this morning--I really want to focus on getting the best
possible people as deputies to me in the new DNI. And one of
the deputies I would expect to have would be somebody in charge
of overseeing analysis by the intelligence community. And I'm
going to look for the finest possible person to occupy that
position.
Senator Mikulski. Well, I think that's a wonderful
approach. But I'm going to go to another lesson learned from
the State Department. As I understand at the State Department,
there is something called the dissent channel, that can go
right on up, even by, say, an intern or some beginning Foreign
Service officer, all the way up to the Secretary of State, just
so that he or she is aware that there's an alternative opinion,
not only the alternative analysis, which we desperately need,
which was not present back when we got the NIE on Iraq, but
also that an individual could let the top dog, if you will,
know that there is a possible yellow flashing light to the
direction. Would you consider within the intel community, both
at CIA, DoD and others, to have some type of dissent channel
that would get to you and your top team?
Ambassador Negroponte. I believe there are already
provisions----
Senator Mikulski. And I'm not talking about the exact
replica.
Ambassador Negroponte. No, I understand. And I think it's a
great idea.
Senator Mikulski. I'm just talking about ways that we're
ensuring that we're making sure the views are known.
Ambassador Negroponte. I think it's a very good idea. It's
worked well in the State Department. There is a provision, I
believe, for an ombudsman in the law, but maybe some variant of
that. You also mentioned something earlier, as you asked the
question, which I think is important also, which is some kind
of lessons-learned mechanism within the intelligence community,
to be sure that when we do have some problem with a product of
ours that we can go back and really analyze and engage in self-
criticism about how that arose and how it can be avoided in the
future and what can be done to improve the product the next
time around.
Senator Mikulski. The other goes to leadership, which is
different than management. Leadership helps create a state of
mind in an organization, whether it's a country or an Executive
Branch agency or a corporation. As you go about building this
sense of community--and by the way, I do think it needs to be
done for our people who are risking their lives in the field,
people who work a 36-hour day, either out at Langley or the FBI
or out at NSA. So will you also create a tone where you will
ensure that there will be no retaliation for people who attempt
to speak the truth?
Ambassador Negroponte. Yes. I think the short answer to you
is a categorical yes.
Senator Mikulski. And I would hope that that would be part
of it. Is my time up, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Roberts. Well, basically, I would tell the Senator
that your time is never up. But in terms of the 8 minutes that
we have allotted, yes, it is, ma'am. But we can have a second
round.
Senator Mikulski. Well, thank you. And then we'll talk
about some of these other issues. But I think this was very
important and I appreciate your forthrightness.
Chairman Roberts. Senator Bayh.
Senator Bayh. Ambassador, welcome. I thank you for your
devotion to public service. Did I hear correctly this is your
eighth Senate confirmation process?
Ambassador Negroponte. Yes, sir. Five Ambassadorships--just
to clarify, because the Chairman, at the beginning when he
introduced me, mentioned five. I've had five Ambassadorships,
but I've been an Assistant Secretary of State, which required
confirmation, for Oceans and International, Environmental and
Scientific Affairs. And when I was Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Fisheries I also had the rank of Ambassador Senatorially
confirmed.
Senator Bayh. Well, eight Senate confirmation processes,
some people might say that's violative of the Constitution's
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. But we're
grateful to you for your willingness to come before us yet
again. And I hope, before I get into my questions, that you
won't hesitate to let us know what we can do in working with
you to improve the quality of the product that you will be
charged with putting out.
Recently, in a different setting, it was suggested that
there were some legal changes, some things that could be done
to actually improve the efficiency with which we're conducting
particularly some aspects of the war on terror. So I hope you
won't hesitate to let us know what you think we can do to
uphold our part.
My first question is, as we now all regrettably know, our
Nation suffered a colossal intelligence failure with regard to
the assessment of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It's
been 2 years now. This has been the subject of review by this
Committee, by the Silberman Report. We've uncovered some
shocking lapses in tradecraft, frankly, that if the
consequences weren't so profound--you mentioned CURVEBALL--some
of this would be almost comical if it wasn't so sad.
My question to you, Ambassador, is this. As you undertake
these responsibilities, can we tell the American people today,
after the passage of 2 years, that the quality and the
reliability of our intelligence product is materially better
than it was 2 years ago in assessing weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq?
Ambassador Negroponte. In Iraq?
Senator Bayh. In Iraq.
Ambassador Negroponte. Well, of course, we----
Senator Bayh. There was obviously a huge failure there. Is
it better today? Have we improved with the passage of the last
years?
Ambassador Negroponte. I certainly think that Mr. Duelfer's
Report was a very candid and forthcoming one. And I think that
his report, while it contained a number of revelations about
the inadequacy of our intelligence beforehand--but I think that
it----
Senator Bayh. These entities that you're about to assume
supervisory authority over, have they improved? Are things
getting better or are we just where we were 2 years ago that
led to this very unfortunate miscalculation?
Ambassador Negroponte. Well, Senator, I'm not sure I have a
holistic enough view at the moment. I think I'd probably have a
better view once I take on this job. But certainly, speaking
from the perspective of being Ambassador to Iraq, for example,
I believe that I was a beneficiary of a lot of useful
intelligence information. But I think when you talk about WMD,
you're talking about one of the toughest nuts to crack because
usually what we're trying to get is WMD information in these
very closed societies. So maybe the beginning of truth here is
to acknowledge to ourselves candidly what we don't know before
we start talking about what we do know.
Senator Bayh. Let me put a little finer point on it. It is
very difficult. And I want to second what you said. There's a
lot of good intelligence work that's being done. This is a
difficult area, but it is, as you know, profoundly important.
So let me put a finer point on it.
There are troubling developments in North Korea and Iran.
At least, we think there are troubling developments. So when we
go to the American people or we go to the international
community and we say, here's what we believe is happening in
these two societies, should they have greater confidence in our
assertions? Are things heading in a better direction with
regard to our ability to assess these difficult targets and
this difficult issue?
Because if we're going to get international cooperation in
dealing with these troubling developments, credibility is the
coin of the realm and we had a failure. We need to be able to
point to some evidence that things are getting better so that
we will be believed.
Ambassador Negroponte. I think there are two questions in
there. I think the first about the credibility of the
assertions, I would suspect they're more credible, because I
think all of us have learned the lesson of being careful about
assertions with respect to WMD. So I think that whatever we do
say, I think we're going to be more cautious in how we develop
those pronouncements.
As to how much progress we're making, I'm not sure I'm able
to comment, in actually unearthing the kind of information we
want to find out. But what I can assure you is that that's just
got to be one of the principal focuses of our intelligence
effort--terrorism and WMD. And those are issues that I'm going
to devote an awful lot of my time.
Senator Bayh. Let me, in part, tell you what I've been told
by others in response to that question, and that is that our
assessments are getting a lot better, but that's because we're
admitting what we don't know. So the assessments are more
accurate, but not more illuminating. And ultimately, more
illuminating, and therefore more credible, is where we need to
arrive.
I've also been told that the analytical part we're
beginning to--with some of the questions my colleagues have
touched upon--we're beginning to deal with the analytical part,
but collection is still an area that really needs work.
If you had to list the two or three top priorities you
would have in the area of collection, what would they be in
terms of improving the quality of information, the volume and
quality of information that we're collecting so that the
analysts can do their job?
Ambassador Negroponte. Well, maybe we can discuss some of
this a bit more in closed session. But I certainly think the
WMD issues with respect to Iran and North Korea would be high
on that list. And I think there's some intelligence issues vis-
a-vis Iraq, too, that I would rate very high.
Senator Bayh. You've already touched upon the HUMINT aspect
of this, I believe. Let me ask you, finally, in terms of the
priorities looking globally at our strategic priorities for
intelligence collection and assessment and then use by the
policymakers, where would you rank China in terms of our
priorities? We have the war on terror. We have proliferation.
We have assisting the warfighter. Where would you rank China?
Ambassador Negroponte. think this raises a broader issue,
doesn't it, Senator? And you're talking to somebody who spent
about 15 years of his career in East Asia--Hong Kong, the
Philippines, Vietnam--but always on the periphery of China and
as a Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asia. So I feel I
know--and I went to Beijing with Dr. Kissinger in 1972. So I
was in on the takeoff, if you will, of our relationship with
the People's Republic of China.
That is a long-term issue. Our children and grandchildren
are going to live in a world where China will be a very strong
and powerful player on the world scene. So in terms of longer-
term intelligence analysis, I think it's very important to
follow countries such as China, analyze them well and carefully
so that we understand the longer-term implications that a
country like that has for our foreign policy.
Senator Bayh. I would encourage you in allocating scarce
resources, and obviously you always have to set priorities--but
let's not let the long-term--let's not lose sight of the longer
term, where I think this is going to be a very important
relationship that we understand. Again, thank you, Ambassador.
Look forward to working with you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence.
Chairman Roberts. Senator Rockefeller.
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador, I think it is amazing that you've been through
all those investigations. And I know that I was very happy to
vote for you on the Foreign Relations Committee when you came
up for the United Nations.
There are some questions which are better discussed in the
afternoon, but I just want to put this out because I don't
think it violates anything. And, yet, if it draws a response
which is interesting then I think that will of itself be
interesting. The CIA is obviously the lead agency for the
conduct of covert action programs. And the CIA Director
manages, as of this day, the carrying out of those activities
to whatever extent they exist.
Number one, do you believe that any agencies other than the
CIA ought to carry out covert actions, because the war on
terror is going to be with us for a very, very long time which
we really haven't gotten into enough. And second, what do you
see as the role of the DNI in your interaction with this
traditional role of the CIA?
Ambassador Negroponte. Senator, on the first question, I
believe the answer is that there are already other agencies, I
think, that can carry out certain kinds of clandestine----
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. I didn't say clandestine; I said
covert.
Ambassador Negroponte. I'm just not sure how to
characterize some of the activities that might take place, for
example, in a war theater. But as a general rule, the
concentration of covert action has been in the Central
Intelligence Agency, which is as I think it should be.
What is the relationship of the DNI to the CIA on these
issues? Well, of course, the Director of the CIA will report to
me, as the law states and as the President also reaffirmed. But
I think with respect to the operational aspects of covert
actions, as distinct from sort of generally overseeing them, I
think that that will be something that will have to be worked
out, but I think more likely will be carried out by the
Director of Central Intelligence under the direction of the
President through the National Security Council.
I think it's a question of a command relationship. But my
understanding of the legislation is that I will be responsible
for reporting to the Committee on covert action. So, obviously,
Mr. Goss and I are going to have to work very closely together
and reach good understandings on the division of labor with
respect to this question.
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. My
final question is, you know, because it's sort of intriguing to
talk about the future, China, how long is the war on terror,
how are we going to react, how are we going to get language so
it's not just 2 years in a classroom, but also 2 years on the
street in the place where you're going, so you learn the street
language and all of those things.
And it's much more interesting, somehow, to talk about
overseas. It's the American nature. But the American
imperative, frankly, for us is not only to stop the terrorism
which is being planned or has been planned for what might go on
in this country or American assets elsewhere in the world, but
the whole question of homeland security.
And the Chairman and I have talked about this a good deal,
and I think there's a great--I believe, on this Committee, and
I believe generally in the Congress--there's a great sense of
lack of confidence in the way that the Homeland Security 22 or
27 agencies are coming together--the fact that they've had
several directors; the fact that they have--I think the
Chairman pointed out to me--as many different communications
systems as there are agencies, virtually; and the fact that,
you know, in a State like the one I come from, which doesn't
have any cities over 45,000 people, we do have something called
the Ohio River, which goes past some of the largest chemical
plants in America outside of New Jersey, and that there's
virtually no coverage to their backside.
We have power plants. There are 103 nuclear power plants in
this country. Now, your job description is somewhat limited to
intelligence that comes from that. But I would hope that, as
the Director of National Intelligence--which people are going
to look upon as kind of making the whole deal work, as much as
intelligence--that you will stretch the envelope even further
on the workings or the non-workings of the Department of
Homeland Security.
I have grave reservations about what's going on there. I
have grave reservations about the security of the American
Nation, the American people. I worry about it every day.
Ambassador Negroponte. Certainly, I think one of the
challenges here is, as we discussed earlier, to integrate the
foreign and the domestic intelligence. And it is, of course,
not only the Department of Homeland Security, but dealing with
all those local and State law enforcement officials that exist
throughout the country.
And as you suggest, that is primarily the responsibility of
the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland
Security. But I've been to meet with Secretary Chertoff and
we've agreed that we're going to work very, very closely
together on these issues. So I share your concern, Senator.
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. Thank you.
Chairman Roberts. I believe it is Senator Wyden's turn next
on the second round. Yes, that's correct.
Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For the last 2\1/2\ hours, Ambassador, you have worn your
diplomat's hat superbly, and I think what I'm interested in is
seeing you put on the new hat as the head of the national
intelligence program.
I, for example, am not convinced, after several questions
now, that you would move aggressively when a top policymaker
misused intelligence. I think your attempt to convince me that
there wasn't a big gap between what you said with respect to
Honduras' human rights practices and what seemingly everybody
else said--the CIA, the Inter-American Court--I think that was
very far-fetched.
And so I hope now on this round that we can get some sense
that you are willing to push aggressively for change. And I'm
going to ask you several questions in this regard. For example,
do you feel that there is a serious problem with
overclassification of documents in the national security area?
Ambassador Negroponte. Senator, I don't know about
classification or overclassification. But I do think what's
important is ensuring proper access to information by those
members of the intelligence and law enforcement community who
need to have access to it. And one of my charges is going to be
to work on this very issue. So I think access is the important
point--getting information around that has to be gotten around.
As to the specific question of classification or
overclassification, certainly the trend in my lifetime has been
to reduce levels of classification wherever possible. And I've
seen that happen before my own eyes.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Ambassador, it is hard to see how that
could possibly be the case.
Governor Kean, for example, said that three-quarters of
what he saw with respect to Iraq was an overclassification.
There is a voluminous record. Senator Lott and I have led a
bipartisan effort on this matter, with the support of Senator
Roberts and Senator Rockefeller. And for you to tell us that
you think we're actually moving in the other direction, the
public record is simply all the other way.
And I'm going to come this afternoon to the session in our
closed capacity. I'm going to be available to meet with you
privately. But I will tell you, what I have seen over the last
2\1/2\ hours--and I haven't left the room--leaves me very
troubled about the approach you're going to take as the head of
national intelligence. I don't think we're going to get the
independence that this country needs.
And let me, if I might--I gather I have a few more
minutes--ask you about a couple of other policy questions to
see the approach you would take.
You talked earlier about interrogation, detention and
rendition and made the point that your desire is to make sure
that they comply with the Constitution, and that's admirable.
Is it your view that the United States should continue the
policy of rendering suspected terrorists to countries with a
long record of torture and barbaric practices? Or is that a
policy that you would take a fresh look at and try to bring a
degree of independence to?
Ambassador Negroponte. Senator, with regard to the question
of rendering detainees, here's what I'm prepared to commit to
you. First, that the law will be obeyed; second, doing
everything in my power to ensure that the organizations under
my purview are obeying the law; and pushing to have any and all
violators prosecuted.
[A disruption in the audience.]
Chairman Roberts. Will the security please remove the
individual from the hearing room? And the Committee will stand
in recess for about 2 minutes.
[Recess.]
Chairman Roberts. OK, the Committee will resume again. And,
Senator Wyden, you are recognized.
Senator Wyden. Thank you again.
Ambassador, with no disrespect, I would just like some more
specificity with respect to the policy. For example, what
concerns me is your answer suggests that you would be willing
to trust one of these governments, such as Syria, for example,
that is known to practice torture on a routine basis, with
current law with respect to rendition.
And I was just hoping, as I've tried to throughout the last
2\1/2\ hours, to see if you might be willing to take a fresh
look at some of these policies and bring not just your
consummate diplomatic skills, which are extraordinary and have
certainly been manifest this morning, but what I and others I
think are hoping for in this national intelligence director
position, which is an independence and a willingness to take a
fresh look.
Ambassador Negroponte. I'm not sure I can add----
Senator Wyden. You're just going to go along with current
law.
Well, let me ask about one other area, and that's the
PATRIOT Act. Now, surveillance powers authorized by the PATRIOT
Act are implemented, of course, by the FBI. Do you foresee your
office involving itself in decisions relating to the
implementation of the PATRIOT Act's surveillance powers? And if
so, for example, what might those be--weighing in on whether
the FBI might seek a FISA warrant, that kind of matter?
Ambassador Negroponte. Senator, I'm not entirely certain
what my authorities would be under FISA. When I was the Deputy
National Security Adviser under President Reagan, one of my
responsibilities was to authorize such warrants.
But one thing that I can assure you is that in my new
position I will do everything that I can to ensure that the
civil liberties of U.S. citizens are not being violated. There
will be a privacy and civil liberties oversight board that's
going to be created, and there's also going to be a civil
liberties officer position established by law within the DNI.
So I think that we're going to do our utmost to protect the
civil rights of American citizens.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, my time is up.
I would only say to colleagues, on this round the nominee
has said that not only is there no problem with
overclassification of documents, we're going in the other
direction, in his judgment; he's not aware of what his powers
are with respect to FISA; and he's going to simply comply with
current law on rendition.
Each of those areas, I would hope that we could work on a
bipartisan basis to initiate reforms. And I don't find the
nominee's answers satisfactory on this points.
And I thank you for the second round, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Roberts. Senator Corzine.
Senator Corzine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a question that is really off of the directions that
we've been following. And it really goes at something that I
think is truly important, certainly in a strategic sense, but
in a moral sense.
I think most people would find tragic the lack of
responsiveness of the global community to the Rwandan 800,000-
person genocide. And I want to know, either now or in due
course, are we, in our intelligence communities, responding and
developing both collection and analysis with regard to what has
become a repetitive reality in global affairs, whether it's
Cambodia or Bosnia or Rwanda, and now continues in Darfur. At
least that's what the Congress says and the Secretary of State.
Have you given any thought, and do you believe that we have
sufficient resources to be able to help frame our policies
appropriately on some what I would consider the highest moral
issues that we have on our globe?
Ambassador Negroponte. As you know, Senator, when I was the
Ambassador to the United Nations, I worked a lot on these
issues--peacekeeping questions in the Great Lakes region,
Sierra Leone, the issue of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
and so forth.
I haven't been following those issues closely since I was
Ambassador to Iraq. And I certainly, you said in due course, I
would assume that we're getting some good intelligence on
Darfur. But I would have to look into the level of intelligence
effort that is being addressed to those situations.
But it goes to the issue of how one allocates and decides
national intelligence priorities. And it's certainly one of the
kinds of issues that I'm going to have to address in this new
job.
Senator Corzine. I must say that I would hope that I would
hear that concern about this, representing the basic moral
values and cultural values of our country, will be at the top
of the priority list.
In fact, I think they're strategic, because when there is a
breakdown, it creates the environment where, in fact, some of
the things that are more obvious, terrorism, are bred. And this
is a repetitive problem in our lifetime. And I think it is not
adequately represented in any of our discussions; not that it
is ignored, but human life is human life and we are not
addressing these issues.
Thank you.
Chairman Roberts. Senator Levin is recognized and then the
Chair will recognize the distinguished Chairman of the Armed
Services Committee.
Senator Levin. Has he had his first round already?
Chairman Roberts. No.
Senator Levin. If you haven't had your first round, why
don't you go ahead.
Chairman Roberts. The Senator from Michigan has very kindly
demurred, and I will recognize the distinguished Senator from
Virginia, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Negroponte, I've had the privilege of knowing you for
many, many, many years. And I wholeheartedly respect and am
gratified, as are the citizens of this country, that you've
taken on this responsibility, together with your family. And I
think you'll do admirably well in pioneering this new and very,
very important post.
And since we go back some 30-odd years, you know the
effectiveness of government is not dependent totally on the
Federal statute or regulation; it's on the ability of forming
working and trusting relationships with your peer group and
your superiors and the like. And you've had a good track record
at doing that.
And when you've felt at odds, I know from personal
experience you have stood your ground and stood on principle.
And I commend you for that.
My comments go directly to the Department of Defense, where
I share that responsibility, together with at least three
Members of this panel who are presently here at this time. And
I talked at some length with the Secretary of Defense this
week, as well as Dr. Cambone, his deputy for intelligence.
First, I think the record should show you met with him shortly.
Am I not correct on that?
Ambassador Negroponte. Yes, sir.
Senator Warner. And reviewed with him your respective
viewpoints with regard to the new law and the challenges of
this position and particularly the relationship that you hope
to forge with Secretary Rumsfeld in fulfilling these
responsibilities.
Ambassador Negroponte. Yes, sir.
Senator Warner. And I go to the fact that about 80 percent
of the resources, and a similar amount of the manpower
associated with a national intelligence program--that's the
national part--is within the cognizance of the Department of
Defense at this time. And therefore, cooperation between you
and the Secretary is of paramount important. We all recognize
that.
And you will determine the budgets of the national
intelligence elements within the DoD, with input from the
Secretary of Defense, but ultimately based upon his priorities
and authorities, as the Director of National Intelligence.
Senator Warner. And I correct in that?
Ambassador Negroponte. Yes, sir.
Senator Warner. Good.
And then we also have the funding of the Joint Military
Intelligence Program and the Tactical Intelligence Program,
which are under the direct cognizance of the Secretary of
Defense. But there again you take an active participation in
the budget. And also, you've established a reporting chain so
that you know the activities of those organizations and their
functions will be performed in consultation with you. Am I
correct on that?
Ambassador Negroponte. Yes, sir.
Senator Warner. So again I find, based on your meeting
which was reported to me, that you're working on as seamless as
possible relationship that you can at the start-off of your new
responsibilities subject to confirmation. Would that be
correct?
Ambassador Negroponte. Yes, sir.
Senator Warner. Last, there's been some report in the
press--and I actually have addressed this--about the
organizational charter, a document that the Secretary of
Defense asked Dr. Cambone to put together. And that's
understandable--to draw on it all together, put it down on
paper as to how the Secretary of Defense wishes to work within
his structure over those responsibilities. Dr. Cambone
basically will be his principal deputy for that.
And a draft of that charter was sent to the current acting
DCI for comment. It's also before your transition staff. And I
think, quite properly, you will await your comments on the
draft of that charter, subject to the Senate's confirmation. Am
I correct on that?
Ambassador Negroponte. Yes. And I have not had an
opportunity to read the proposal yet, sir.
Senator Warner. I understand that. But that is another step
that you will take such that I think the Senate can presume
that eventually this charter will be adopted by the Secretary
of Defense for the purpose of his organization and will
incorporate such recommendations as you may wish to make,
together with that of the head of the Central Intelligence
Agency.
So, Mr. Chairman, I'm satisfied with those areas in which
you and I, as a member of the Armed Services Committee,
together with Senator Levin, have primary responsibilities. And
I look forward to working with you. Thank you again and thank
your family.
Chairman Roberts. I thank the Chairman for his comments.
And I thank the ex officio Member's questions. And I think they
were needed clarification.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador Negroponte, the Senate Intelligence Committee
Report of July 2004 contains over 500 pages detailing
intelligence community mistakes, incompetence,
misrepresentations, relative to its estimates of the Iraq WMD
program. The recent Silberman-Robb Report contains about the
same number of pages and similar detail about those failures of
the intelligence community relative to that WMD program in
Iraq. Then we had the 9/11 Commission Report on numerous
failures within the intelligence community before the terrorist
attacks of 9/11.
And prior to the 9/11 Commission Report, there was a House-
Senate joint inquiry into the failures of the intelligence
community before the 9/11 attacks, including failures of
officials to pass critical information to other agencies,
including failures of headquarters to heed field reports
concerning efforts of people to learn how to fly, but not learn
how to take off or land airplanes.
Now, despite all of the hundreds of pages of failures,
mistakes, incompetence, misrepresentations, there's been no
accountability within the intelligence community. Are you
troubled by the lack of accountability?
Ambassador Negroponte. I think there should be
accountability, Senator. And I think that we've got to learn
from our lessons. We've got to fix what we think needs to be
fixed. And we've got to go forward. But I don't know enough
about the specifics, about who might have been responsible for
a specific intelligence lapse, one or another. And I know that
there's work being done in that area. For example, I know that
Mr. Goss is looking into the whole question of CURVEBALL. And
he's asked his inspector general to look into that.
So I'm reluctant to discuss what specific types of measures
of accountability might be taken. But yes, people should be
held accountable.
Senator Levin. Have you read the Senate Intelligence
Committee Report of July 2004, or a summary of it?
Ambassador Negroponte. I've read the Executive Summary of
it.
Senator Levin. Have you read the Silberman-Robb Report?
Ambassador Negroponte. Yes I have. I've read a lot of it.
And of course I've read all the recommendations.
Senator Levin. Because it lays out in detail the failures,
the lapses, the oversights, the incompetence, and yet nothing--
no action has been taken against anybody. What kind of a
message does that send?
Ambassador Negroponte. Well, Senator, I think the important
thing is to deal with some of the systemic problems that might
have existed, try to figure out how to improve the situation,
and get on with the business of making these improvements.
I see that as my charge, to try to improve the quality of
the analytical product through the various mechanisms that are
envisaged in the law. And I think that's got to be the focus of
the effort. Let's get on with the business of improving the
quality of the intelligence product that is given to our
decisionmakers.
Senator Levin. Everybody wants to do that.
Ambassador Negroponte. Yes.
Senator Levin. Unless people are held accountable for
failures to do their job, it seems to me we're more likely to
repeat these problems. You say you believe people should be
held accountable for misstatements, failures to do their jobs.
I hope you'll take that into your office, because it's not good
enough to just simply say systemic problems, although obviously
there are. And it's not good enough to simply say we should go
forward, although we obviously must.
Part of trying to avoid a repeat of these problems is to
hold folks accountable when they did things they should not
have done. CURVEBALL is but one example--just one example--
where you have got people who say they brought this to the
attention--and this being the total incredibility of a source--
of the leadership of the CIA, and the CIA leadership says, no,
they didn't.
Someone's got to find out whether they did or didn't.
Ambassador Negroponte. And that, I understand, is what Mr.
Goss is looking to do.
Senator Levin. But there are dozens of examples like this
in those reports. And we need you to carry out this commitment
about accountability. We need you to be confident that you mean
what you say when you say you believe that there should be
accountability for individuals who fail in the performance of
their duties.
Is that a yes? We should have that confidence because you
will? I mean, I'm trying to figure out----
Ambassador Negroponte. To be honest with you, Senator, I
don't know who specifically is accountable and who is not.
Senator Levin. My last question, because the yellow light
is on. According to the Silverman-Robb Report, the intelligence
community ignored the findings and the conclusions of the UN
people relative to WMD programs. They were specifically on the
ground. Two agencies spent 3 months on the ground in Iraq
inspecting every facility they could and interviewing Iraqi
personnel.
Now Silverman-Robb pointed out that the intelligence
community ignored that one source of real intelligence on Iraq
at a time when it had no good intelligence of its own. Does
that trouble you?
Ambassador Negroponte. I think that's, in part, what they
are referring to in terms of group-think, of carrying
assumptions forward from previous behavior by the Saddam regime
and therefore being dismissive of reports that somehow the
Iraqi regime's behavior might have been different than what the
preconceived notion was.
But let's not forget there was a lot of bias and prejudice
built into the analysis. That's one of the things I think I
take away from reading these various reports. There was a lot
of prejudice built into these analyses based on the past
performance of the regime and the fact that we were taken by
surprise in the early 1990s at the degree to which the Iraqi
regime had developed weapons of mass destruction.
So I think a lot of these assumptions were simply carried
forward and considered to still be valid.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Roberts. In closing, we want to thank you for your
time here this morning, Mr. Ambassador. I think it's been very
helpful. We will have a closed session at 2:30. I have just a
couple of questions or perhaps a comment and a question.
I noted with interest that not only have you been confirmed
by the Senate seven times, but you have gone through nine
background checks--nine of them. I would venture to say I don't
know too many Senators that could go through nine background
checks without at least a question or two being raised.
And you've had a distinguished career of public service, by
my calculation, 40 years. I agree in total with the comments by
Senator Stevens and others.
This position is new. There are a lot of questions in
regard to your authority. Just this morning you have been asked
a hypothetical: Will you stand up to your public policy
officials, i.e., your bosses--or the boss--in regards to
commenting publicly or at least very aggressively to them if in
fact you think that the consensus of that analysis is wrong?
In a milder version--you ought to hear Senator Wyden when
he really gets wound up--you know, of ducking an issue of 25
years ago that he thinks has pertinence to the current
situation--and I'm not trying to perjure his comments in any
way--that you're vague, you're not aggressive--the press
expects you to have a public arm wrestling contest at RFK with
Secretary Rumsfeld--you have to worry about attack on the
homeland; you have to worry about a broken intelligence
community.
If we go back in history to Khobar, the India nuclear test,
the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, the Belgrade embassy, the
Khartoum chemical plant--whoops, the wrong plant--then 9/11 has
been alluded to by Senator Levin, the WMD studies.
We've got the Bremer Commission, the Gilmore Commission,
the CIS study, the Hart-Rudman Commission and God knows how
many other commissions. You have at least 1,000 armchair
experts on television every night. You have authors writing
books.
In the past, Mr. Tenet, Mr. Deutch, Mr. Woolsey, the
Chairmen of this Committee--Senator Specter, Senator Shelby and
Senator Graham--I don't think we took an activist approach on
this to the extent that Senator Rockefeller and I want to have
much more proactive or preemptive oversight.
And you can see by the questions here that we are very
eagerly awaiting that opportunity to work with you to achieve
that.
Then, obviously, you have to have better collection, better
HUMINT, better analysis, better consensus, threat analysis,
better information access as opposed to sharing.
You've got to take a look at the capabilities in regard to
the hard targets that pose a very threat to us today. And the
Silberman-Robb Commission has indicated that unfortunately that
still exists in terms of some lack of capability.
My question to you is--and this is just the approach to the
position--given all of that, why in the hell do you want this
job?
[Laughter.]
Ambassador Negroponte. Because it's important, Senator.
Chairman Roberts. And you think you can make that
difference?
Ambassador Negroponte. Well, I hope I can make a
difference.
Chairman Roberts. You've made a difference in the past. I
think you're an excellent appointee, but I just wanted to give
you an opportunity, with all of that burden upon your
shoulders, you know--our very best wishes to you.
Do you have any comments on why you yourself think that you
can get this job done?
Ambassador Negroponte. Well, as I said, I think it's
important. I think one of the reasons I may be able to get
something done in this job is because I do have long experience
in the national security and the diplomatic area. And I think
that it will be dealing with several of the most serious
national security issues that our country is going to be facing
for the foreseeable future, namely international terrorism and
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, among others.
So as somebody who's devoted his life to dealing with these
kinds of difficult national security and foreign policy issues,
I was honored when President Bush offered me the opportunity to
undertake this responsibility.
Chairman Roberts. So you willfully went into the briar
patch and now we're at the crossroads. I can promise you, sir,
that we will try to be of as much help as we possibly can.
There is one other comment I want to make.
Do you agree with this statement? We have heard over and
over again during the debate on the intelligence reform bill
and on other matters that 80 percent of the funding in regard
to the intelligence community does go to the military or in
regard to supporting the military.
And we have heard during the debate under whose
jurisdiction the national foreign intelligence program should
be. But the majority user of intelligence is obviously the
warfighter. And you have just been through that with General
Casey in your position over there as Ambassador in Baghdad.
And that is true, and so I think there is a bias,
understandably, among those who serve on the Committees who
have that jurisdiction in support of the warfighter and the
military; count me in on that--also Senator Levin, others. But
the principal user of intelligence is the President of the
United States and the National Security Council and, with all
due respect, the Congress of the United States.
And I don't think we should ever lose sight of that. Nobody
in the Congress wants to deny or harm in any way that lash-up
between the intelligence community and our warfighters, more
especially when we're involved in any kind of a military
mission.
But again, the principal user, and why Senator Levin is
being so insistent, is that it is the President of the United
States and the National Security Council and the Congress of
the United States in the policymaking business that we must
rely on credible intelligence. And unfortunately that has not
been the case.
I should have phrased that better in a question. Are you in
agreement with that comment?
Ambassador Negroponte. I wouldn't change a word of what you
said, Senator.
Chairman Roberts. Bless your heart.
Thank you for coming.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, just a question with respect
to scheduling. What is your plan with respect to how we
proceed? We're going to have a session this afternoon, a closed
session?
Chairman Roberts. Yes, sir. At 2:30. It's a closed session,
and it's in the usual place.
Senator Wyden. When would you expect the vote on the
nominee?
Chairman Roberts. As soon as we possibly can. I haven't
scheduled that with the floor. And I've talked with the Leader,
and it's his intent that he would like to do it as soon as he
can.
Senator Wyden. But you wouldn't expect that the Committee
would vote this afternoon on the nominee?
Chairman Roberts. No.
Senator Wyden. I'm very appreciative of that, Mr. Chairman,
because I'm anxious to hear from the nominee this afternoon
behind closed doors.
Chairman Roberts. I know you have additional questions,
sir.
Senator Wyden. Great. Thank you very much.
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman? As usual, the record will be
kept open for how long, for additional questions?
Chairman Roberts. I think the remainder of the day should
be sufficient, unless somebody wishes some additional time.
Senator Levin. That's fine. The remainder of the day,
that's fine.
Chairman Roberts. Ambassador, thank you very much.
Ambassador Negroponte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Roberts. Go have lunch.
Ambassador Negroponte. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:11 p.m., the hearing adjourned.]