CNBC Capital Report - Transcript

CNBC News Transcripts

SHOW: Capital Report (7:00 PM ET) - CNBC

HEADLINE: Senators Chuck Hagel and Charles Schumer discuss the terror alerts and the nomination of Porter Goss as CIA chief

ANCHORS: ALAN MURRAY

BODY:
ALAN MURRAY, co-host:

So how is Capitol Hill reacting to the latest terror developments and to the president's choice to head the CIA? Joining me now, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, member of the Intelligence Committee, and Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York.

Gentlemen, let's start with these new indications of surveillance going on in cities like Atlanta, Charlotte, Houston, Austin. Senator Hagel, that's pretty worrisome stuff, isn't it?

Senator CHUCK HAGEL (Republican, Nebraska): Well, I think we should not overreact to this news. Obviously, we are an open, mobile, transparent society. We are, to a certain extent, always going to be vulnerable. But the focus should be on-always should be on tightening our security and working with our law enforcement, intelligence, bringing those together in an integrated way. So we don't want to panic America, but we need to stay alert; we will be alert.

MURRAY: But, Senator Schumer, are these cities going to have to take the kind of security steps that New York has already taken?

Senator CHARLES SCHUMER (Democrat, New York): Well, there hasn't been, at least as I saw from your report, a link to terrorism. People want to know why he was taking these pictures. Just because he's a national-Pakistani citizenship doesn't mean anything yet. If they find some link to terrorism, obviously, they'd have to tighten things up. But I agree with Chuck Hagel: Every time you find someone of South Asian or Arab origin taking pictures doesn't necessarily mean something's involved in terrorism. You've got to be careful...

MURRAY: Yeah.

Sen. SCHUMER: ...but you can't leap to conclusions.

MURRAY: OK. Let's go to the other news of the day: Porter Goss, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, former CIA agent himself, worked some south of Florida. We don't know a lot of the details of that. But is he-Senator Hagel, is he the right man for this job at this time?

Sen. HAGEL: Well, Alan, I think he is a good, solid choice. He certainly brings a tremendous amount of experience, knowledge, ability. I think his temperament is right. His chairing of the House Intelligence Committee also gives him some political understanding of how this works. I think it's a good choice. I think it's a very solid choice.

MURRAY: All right. Senator Schumer, Senator Rockefeller, your colleague, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, says it's a mistake.

Sen. SCHUMER: Well, let me tell you my view. I agree with Chuck's analysis of Porter Goss. I think he's a fine man, and the fact that he's a Republican Congress member doesn't really bother me. If a Democratic president chose, say, Jay Rockefeller, a person of unquestioned integrity and intelligence with great knowledge of what's going on in our intelligence agencies, I think it would be a good choice.

I have another problem. The 9-11 Commission recommended dramatic overhaul of our intelligence agencies, including a director of national intelligence that had authority over the CIA, particularly in terms of budgetary authority and the ability to hire and fire. Has Porter Goss taken this job accepting that there will be that change? Is the president going to make that change? Or is he going to fight that change? To me...

MURRAY: Is-yeah.

Sen. SCHUMER: To me, that is crucial. The issue here is not the person in charge of the CIA. I frankly thought George Tenet did a pretty good job. It's the structure which is outdated, and the 9-11 Commission's recommendations ought to be adopted either before or at least concurrently as we choose a CIA director.

MURRAY: Senator Hagel, that's a good question. Porter Goss is taking kind of a 'Let's not rush into anything' approach to the 9/11 report, and before the 9/11 report came out, his solution wasn't to put in a director of national intelligence; it was to give more power to the CIA director.

Sen. HAGEL: Well, all of these issues will come out during his confirmation hearing, and we look forward to that hearing, and he'll have an opportunity to explain those positions. But I think there's no question-we are going to reform. We must reform and restructure our intelligence community. Where the CIA director will ultimately fit in that new restructured intelligence community I don't know.

MURRAY: Will there be a director of national intelligence who has real power, including power of the budget, over the CIA, the DIA, the various other intelligence agencies?

Sen. SCHUMER: Well, that...

Sen. HAGEL: I think that remains to be seen. That issue itself, the budget authority, the policy authority, the line management authority of 15 intelligence agencies is a critical part of this, as is, for example, domestic intelligence and international intelligence.

MURRAY: Yeah. Senator Schumer, go ahead.

Sen. SCHUMER: Yeah. I was going to say that's the $64,000 question, and the president sort of waffled on that when he talked about a director of national intelligence. The focus was whether it should be Cabinet-level or not. I think you can argue that one, and the commission was sympathetic, arguing that one either way.

MURRAY: And...

Sen. SCHUMER: There is no good argument, in my judgment, as to whether the director should have the budget and the hiring authority. And if he doesn't get that, he's a toothless tiger. Now I'm sure that Porter Goss, a very smart man, had discussions with the White House about this, and I would be loath to move forward with his confirmation until that issue was resolved.

MURRAY: And, Senator Hagel, what about real change in the way Congress oversees intelligence? That was a big part of the recommendation of the 9-11 Commission.

Sen. HAGEL: Well, that is one of the biggest parts of the recommendations that not only the 9-11 Commission came forward with, but, in fact, our Senate Intelligence Committee came up with some of the same conclusions, as did General Brent Scowcroft's 2001 review recommendations. It must be a part of any restructuring and reforming of the intelligence community. We don't do a good enough job, I don't believe, in the Congress, partly because it's a structural malfunction that we have. You can't take the Armed Services Committee, as it is now, and give them 80 percent of the budget authority and the authority over the intelligence community, and then ask the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Intelligence Committee...

MURRAY: Right.

Sen. HAGEL: ...that would have oversight over it...

MURRAY: OK.

Sen. HAGEL: ...plus the FBI.

MURRAY: Senator Hagel, Senator Schumer, thank you both for being with me.

Sen. HAGEL: Thank you.

Sen. SCHUMER: Thank you, Alan.