Hearing of the Senate Committee on Intelligence

July 20, 2004 Tuesday

SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

SUBJECT: INTELLIGENCE REFORMS

CHAIRED BY: SENATOR PAT ROBERTS (R-KS)

WITNESSES PANEL I:

SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA)

PANEL II: JOHN HAMRE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES; JAMES WOOLSEY, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY;

WILLIAM ODOM, FORMER DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY

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

SEN. RICHARD J. DURBIN (D-IL): Thank you very much.

Senator Feinstein, thank you for your contribution to this. And I think most of believe that since 9/11, as we've looked at the intelligence community and capacity with our reports and others, that the wheels have changed and the wheels of reform grind exceedingly fine and exceedingly slow.

And even our best intentions, creating new departments and trying to merge cultures, trying to bust up the stovepipes, I continue to feel great frustration that there's still so much more to be done, even in light of 9/11. Which leads me to my next concern. What we're talking about with new legislation is building boxes, moving boxes on the organization chart.

And I'm wondering if, at the end of the day, even if we come up with a rational approach for reform and for restructuring the governance of intelligence, whether we still don't have a couple of very fundamental problems. And let me point to one. This new cabinet level person, this DNI, is a person who will have to bring some extraordinary talent to the job.

We have usually kept the director of the CIA in the shadows of the highest levels of government, with the exception of President Bush's father I ask the staff to think back to someone who was clearly a political person who ended up in that position, and there haven't been a lot of them. Some of them may have had political skills, but may not have had the personal political experience.

Most of us feel that we want to keep politics out of this equation, we want the CIA to be objective, dispassionate, honest, accurate, even in the face of political opposition. And yet it's hard for me to imagine someone sitting at that cabinet table who wouldn't have political skills or need them to survive in that atmosphere.

And I'm wondering if we aren't creating here a tension between professionalism and political skills in the person that we're seeking by going to a cabinet level position. That's one of the things that crosses my mind, and I'd like your thoughts on it. The other thing I would note is that I'm just about finished with the biography of Sergeant Shriver, which I recommend. It's very interesting.

Who, with the ear of first President Kennedy and then President Johnson was given extraordinary responsibilities. Create the Peace Corps and let me know when it's ready to go. Create the war on poverty and tell me when you're ready to launch. And he brought exceptional skills, a lot of luck and a lot of trial and error before it finally worked.

And even with the backing of the president it was hard to create these agencies anew, fighting with existing agencies and the like.

It just reminds me again of how much we are vesting in the person that we're looking for, what kind of skill set. The last point I'll make, and I think Senator Hatch referred to it, I think before we go looking for the enemy we ought to look internally, when it comes to reform. We need to do an extraordinarily better job here in oversight. We need more staff, more resources. This is a very demanding committee but a very rewarding committee, in that if we do our job right it protects this country.

And I hope that as we talk about reforming the intelligence agencies we won't forget our own need to reform from within. But could you address this idea of the cabinet level person, political skills and non-political nature of the job?