Hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee - Future Worldwide Threats to U.S. National Security

Federal News Service

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

SUBJECT: FUTURE WORLDWIDE THREATS TO U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY

CHAIRED BY: SENATOR JOHN WARNER (R-VA)

LOCATION: 216 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

WITNESSES: DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE GEORGE TENET; AND DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY DIRECTOR VICE ADMIRAL LOWELL JACOBY

BODY:
SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Director Tenet, Admiral Jacoby, thank you for your service.

In reflecting back on the state of knowledge of the intelligence community back just months and maybe a couple of years ago, certainly at a time when everyone agreed that Saddam was a gathering threat to the security of this country in terms of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the current vice chairman, made this comment; he said, "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapon capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He's working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Mideast. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly."

Now, that statement made by the current vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee on October the 10th 2002, would you characterize that as the best judgment of the intelligence community at the time? Director Tenet, Admiral?

ADM. JACOBY: Sir, I believe the best judgments of our community are as stated in the NIE and I think pretty concisely laid out there.

SEN. CORNYN: Director Tenet?

MR. TENET: Yeah, I didn't-I think it comports with what we said in our National Intelligence Estimate.

SEN. CORNYN: Now, we all know that terrorism did not begin on September the 11th, but there had been previous attacks against this country, one of which was the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. In 1994 there was an attempt made here in the United States Congress to cut the intelligence budget by $1 billion in 1994, one year after the World Trade Center bombing. In 1995, there was another proposal made here in the United States Senate to cut the intelligence budget by $1.5 billion.

Could you please characterize, Director Tenet, what kind of impact cuts of that magnitude would have had on our ability to conduct intelligence operations?

MR. TENET: Well, sir, depending on whether they were enacted or how the cuts were taken, obviously resources are important to us, and a billion dollars in our business, in that time period, was a lot of money and probably would have been very hurtful.

SEN. CORNYN: Admiral Jacoby?

ADM. JACOBY: Sir, we were in Defense intelligence-I'm now talking more broadly than just DIA-coming out of the early '90s, you know, peace dividend period, where a significant amount of force structure-intelligence force structure was cut. So if we would have been taking those kinds of cuts then, in the mid-90s, it would have compounded the problem significantly.

SEN. CORNYN: The specific proposal that was made in 1995 would have cut $300 million for each of the fiscal years, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000. And what I understand each of you two gentlemen to be saying is it would not have been helpful, it would have been hurtful to our country's ability to conduct essential intelligence operations.

MR. TENET: We would agree with that, sir.

SEN. CORNYN: Director Tenet, in your speech in Georgetown, you noted that unfortunately you rarely hear a patient, careful or thoughtful discussion on intelligence these days. And of course that is even more true during the presidential election season. But in fact do you agree that-as characterized earlier, that Saddam fully intended on reconstituting his weapons of mass destruction program, whatever it is they were?

MR. TENET: Well, sir, I think what our National Intelligence Estimate said is we judge that he is continuing his WMD programs in defiance of U.N. resolutions and that he has chemical and biological weapons, as well as missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions, and the judgments are clearly stated out. And that-those were the judgments of our community in October of 2002.

SEN. CORNYN: Dr. Kay-when he testified last before this committee, I asked him about the risk of a willing seller meeting a willing buyer of weapons-such weapons, whether they be large, small or otherwise, and asked him whether he considered that to have been a real risk in terms of Saddam's activities, the risk of proliferation. Dr. Kay said, "Actually, I consider that to be a bigger risk than"-and interpolating here, he said, "than the stockpiles." He said, "Actually, I consider it a bigger risk, and that's why I paused on the preceding question. So I consider that a bigger risk that the restart of his programs being successful."

Admiral Jacoby, do you agree with Dr. Kay's statement in that regard?

ADM. JACOBY: Sir, one of my major concerns, frankly, is the proliferation of the knowledge base. And so the risk of having scientists that worked on various programs available for movement to other areas or for involvement in an extremist network that has those sets of goals, I think, is a concern that we ought to all have very clearly in mind.

SEN. CORNYN: Director Tenet, would you comment, please?

MR. TENET: Well, I think obviously, secondary proliferation in this context is something that worries us. I don't know that I'd worry about it less than the existence of these weapons. But, I mean, obviously, the transport of things over borders and the sale of things to individuals, whether they be terrorist threat or people, would be of enormous concern as well.

SEN. CORNYN: Thank you very much, gentlemen. My time has expired.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.