Hearing of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee - Intelligence, Homeland Defense and Military Operations

Federal News Service

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE SENATE GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

SUBJECT: INTELLIGENCE, HOMELAND DEFENSE AND MILITARY OPERATIONS

CHAIRED BY: SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME)

WITNESSES: SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL; DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY TOM RIDGE

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

BODY:
SEN. COLLINS: The committee will come to order. Good morning.

This morning the Committee on Governmental Affairs holds its seventh hearing on the recommendations of the 9/11 commission to reform America's intelligence community. I commend my colleagues for their dedication to the vital mission assigned to this committee, and I welcome the very distinguished witnesses that we have this morning, whose testimony will help guide us in this critical task.

We meet today after a somber weekend of remembrance. The anniversary of the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks will forever be a day of tears and prayers for the victims and their families. On this third anniversary, tears and prayers were offered as well for the victims of terrorism in Russia and for their families. Now, as three years ago, the grief of people of good will knows no borders.

We in government have an obligation to do more than grieve. The massacre of the innocent school children in Beslan and of innocents in Bali, Istanbul, Madrid, Jerusalem, Jakarta, and so many other places reminds us that terrorism has both a global reach and an unlimited capacity for cruelty. We in government have an obligation to dedicate ourselves to the defeat of this enemy.

The role of this committee in this effort is to transform an intelligence structure built for the Cold War into one that meets the demands of the war against terrorism. Thanks to the hard work of this committee and the many expert witnesses we have heard from, as well as the efforts of the administration and other committees, this new structure is within our reach.

A recent news report put it this way, and I quote: "The White House, both chambers of Congress, and members of both political parties are beginning to sing from the same hymnal on overhauling the nation's intelligence agencies, but they are not all in the same key yet."

To continue the musical metaphor, I would add that although we are not perfectly in tune, neither are we tone deaf. We know that the American people expect a lot of us, and we know what we must do to meet those expectations.

We know that the stakes are high, and we know that reform cannot wait.

With each hearing, significant points of consensus are emerging. The need for a national intelligence director with sufficient authority to do the job effectively becomes more and more evident. The power of the NID position cannot inhibit the competitive analysis advantage that we gain from a vigorous intelligence community. Virtually every witness has endorsed a national counterterrorism center that will integrate our knowledge and coordinate our fight against global terrorism. Intelligence reform should enhance, not detract from military intelligence and readiness.

There is also widespread agreement that the complex threats we face today and into the future require a new configuration that enhances information sharing. Larry Kindsvater, the deputy director of Central Intelligence, has described the situation this way: "No one and no organizational entity is actually responsible for bringing together in a unified manner the entire intelligence community's collection and analytic capabilities to go against individual national security missions and threats, such as terrorism, North Korea, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and China," end quote.

Against that array of threats, we need unity, but we must also preserve the competitive analysis of the 15 members of our intelligence community. Our intelligence network needs a hub, but the nation does not need a new bureaucracy. This hub, which I call the national intelligence authority, must be crafted so that we gain coordination, cooperation and communication, and lose only our vulnerability.

As the title of this hearing indicates, the reform we undertake must be designed to meet the needs of both consumers and producers of intelligence. I'm pleased that we have with us here today the extraordinary leaders of two such departments: Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and Secretary of State Colin Powell. America has been fortunate indeed to have two such outstanding leaders in the war against terrorism.

As a nation, we should recognize how far we have come since September 11th, 2001.SEN GOVT-RIDGE, POWELL PAGE 4 09/13/2002 .STX

The FBI, CIA and other intelligence agencies have undergone significant internal restructuring. We have created the Department of Homeland Security and the Terrorist Threat Integration Center. We've expanded the Joint Terrorism Task Force program as well as the resources available to our first responders. The president, members of Congress and, of course, members and staff of the 9/11 commission have advanced the cause of intelligence reform and put us on the path of continued progress.

Many details still must be resolved before the emerging consensus can be turned into real reform, but each day, we are advancing the goal. We know, from the devastation at ground zero to the slaughter in Russia, that our enemy is capable of anything. Surely we are capable of enacting true reform that will help to make us safer.

Senator Lieberman.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D-CT): Thanks very much, Madame Chairman.

In regard to that hymnal you referred to, I think probably the best thing I can say is, "Amen, sister."

SEN. COLLINS: (Chuckles.)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. COLLINS: Thank you, Senator Lieberman.

I'd now like to call on our first witness, Secretary Powell. Again, thank you both for being here today. I know you're extraordinarily busy.

SEN. TED STEVENS (R-AK): I hope my friend will not object, but I'd like to just make one comment, if I may.

SEN. COLLINS: Absolutely. Certainly.

SEN. STEVENS: And that's, as chairman of the Appropriations Committee-incidentally, I'm a monotone, so I'm not sure I'm on the same page of music that you're looking at yet. (Laughter.)

But I do want to say that our Appropriations Committee-first let me tell you, as a former chairman here, I think you've done a grand job on these hearings so far.

But the Appropriations Committee next week will start a series of hearings.

I think there are people who have not been heard yet, and I intend to have the Appropriations Committee be a forum to listen to those people who are really on the edge of what you're doing and have some comments, I think, based upon experience that we should listen to from the intelligence community. Those will start on the 21st.

SEN. COLLINS: Thank you, Senator. We appreciate your expertise and your advice as we proceed in this important task. You certainly have many years of experience that you can draw on, and we look forward to continuing to work closely with you.

SEN. STEVENS: I'll try to learn how to sing.

SEN. COLLINS: (Laughs.) We've signed you up for lessons. So.

Secretary Powell, please proceed.

SEC. POWELL: Thank you very much, Madame Chairman. I do have a prepared statement for the record which I would like to offer and then provide a shorter statement in oral presentation.

SEN. COLLINS: It will be included in full in the record.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. COLLINS: Thank you.

Secretary Ridge.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

I'm going to call on Senator Stevens first for questions because he has to leave at 10:30. Senator Stevens.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. COLLINS: Thank you.

Senator Lieberman, why don't you go next.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. COLLINS: Thank you, Senator Lieberman.

That's a good lead into the bottom-line question that I want to ask each of you before I go into some of the details of the commission's and the president's plans for reorganizing the intelligence community.

In the case of the North Korean explosion, it sounds like the current system worked well. There are obviously other recent examples where the current system did not work well to produce the kind of quality intelligence that we need.

A bottom-line question for both of you: Do you believe that a strong national intelligence director with enhanced power to set collection priorities, to task the collection of intelligence, will improve the quality of intelligence that you both need in your capacity as policymakers?

Because that's really what this is all about-making sure that we have the structure in place that will produce high-quality intelligence when you need it.

Secretary Powell?

SEC. POWELL: Yes, I do. We need a stronger, empowered quarterback.

SEN. COLLINS: Secretary Ridge?

SEC. RIDGE: I concur. And it would also probably facilitate access. So improving the quality and then facilitating access for the multiple agencies within the intelligence community to each other's information flow would certainly be a plus-up.

SEN. COLLINS: Thank you.

That's very helpful because that really is why we're here, and we do want to get this right.

As you both know, the president has announced that he believes the national intelligence director should be assisted by a Cabinet- level Joint Intelligence Community Council. And, Secretary Powell, you described this in your testimony as giving the director the sort of independent help that he'll require to perform the job.

I'd like to have you both expand on what you see this Joint Intelligence Community Council doing, what you see as the advantages. If, Secretary Powell, there are analogies with the Joint Chiefs, that would be of interest to us as well.

And we'll start with you, Secretary Powell.

SEC. POWELL: Yes, I think this is a very useful corporate model to use-to give advice to the national intelligence director, to rudder corrections and to tell him where he or she are moving in the wrong direction. The person is not going to be omniscient, and therefore, this senior body will play a very, very useful role.

The parallel I was suggesting is with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, particularly as empowered by Goldwater- Nichols in the mid-'80s-and I was the first chairman that had really full authority under Goldwater-Nichols from 1989 to 1993; it had been implemented by the time I took over. But in effect, you took the four service chiefs-the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard on occasion-and then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the vice chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff. Each of those four service secretaries came in and they are responsible for the training and equipping of their forces, so the chief of staff of the Army is worrying about the Army, and the same thing with the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps bosses. But when they came together as the corporate body, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, they were expected not only to represent their service interests, but go beyond that and to represent the interests of the joint body of the nation as a whole.

And I found it to be a very workable and effective system. When we were all together in the time I was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I would have regular meetings with each of them individually where they would pound away on their service needs and service positions. But when I needed to know what they thought as professional military officers and separated-step aside from your corporate responsibility to your service, I would have a meeting in my office with no staff, no note-takers, no agenda, and nobody on any staff knowing what I planned to talk about with the chiefs-but the chiefs knew because I'd call them, and they would step out-they would have sort of a slight out-of-body experience and they would step out of their service and step clearly into the national need. And we got the best advice using that kind of technique.

This I can see in that same way where you have Tom, myself, the secretary of Energy, the secretary of Defense, secretary of the Treasury, where each of us will come together with our unique parochial experience and with the interests of our department and our agenda in mind, but at the same time coming together as a senior-level body to provide advice, counsel, correction, guidance to the MID as to what the overall needs of the nation are. And I'm sure that we will be arguing amongst ourselves inside of that council, as we should. But there is no such council now that does that.

So I think this is an important-an important idea, and I think it will help this whole NID concept to have this kind of a group.

SEN. COLLINS: Thank you.

Secretary Ridge.

SEC. RIDGE: It's very difficult to build on that strong reasoning process. But I'd add one more component to the analogy that Secretary Powell gave you, and that is just to enhance the accountability to both the NID and the president with the principals in the room. I mean, once the consensus is reached after whatever exchange of priorities, debate, discussion, how ever-but once the consensus is reached, when you have the principals involved, rather than an assistant secretary, an undersecretary, a deputy secretary, then I think, frankly, it streamlines and enhances the credibility that whatever is decided is to be implemented and the principal him or herself is going to be held accountable.

SEN. COLLINS: Thank you.

Senator Levin.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. COLLINS: Senator Coleman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. COLLINS: Senator Coleman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. COLLINS: Senator Pryor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. PRYOR: Okay.

And the last thing I had is, I know that in the 9/11 commission report it really talks about how some people should report to two different agency heads, and the NID's deputy for homeland intelligence would be one of those. And I guess I'm a little bit mindful of, you know, what the Bible says about not being able to serve two masters. Do you think that can be worked out in-structurally, that one person, one deputy could be reporting to both? And does that cause you any problem?

SEC. RIDGE: I think if there would be great-if that's what Congress decided we had to do, we'd do it, but the admonition about serving two masters is a good one. And I think the president, in anticipation of that concern, in his recommendation included the joint intel community council. So you're not dealing with necessarily people serving two roles on a day-to-day basis, but you have access to the principals at the Cabinet level to make the critical decisions and to give guidance and to compete for the attention and the budget and everything else that will be in the control and the responsibility of the NID.

So the dual-hatting is not an approach that I think I can-rarely do I speak for any of my colleagues in the Cabinet, but I don't think anybody supports that as a means to the most effective integration of what we do individually as departments and our working relationship with the NID.

SEN. PRYOR: Thank you, Madame Chair.

SEN. COLLINS: Thank you.

Secretary Powell, do you want to respond to that issue also?

SEC. POWELL: Yeah, he's speaking for me, too. It's not a good idea.

SEN. COLLINS: Thank you.

Senator Carper.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. CARPER: Thank you.

Madame Chair, my time has expired. Could I ask the secretary to just take maybe 30 seconds and just give us a quick update on rail security?

SEN. COLLINS: (Laughs.) No. Yes, you may! (Laughs.)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. COLLINS: Thank you.

SEN. CARPER: Madame Chair, you know the old saying, "You can't teach an old dog a new trick." And as it turns out, these dogs are pretty good sniffers, and we just need a few more of them. And I'm pleased to hear that they're being more broadly deployed.

SEN. COLLINS: Thank you.

I would note that we've been joined by the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee. We thank you for your commitment to this issue and for joining us this morning.

Senator Durbin.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. COLLINS: Thank you.

Senator Dayton.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. COLLINS: Senator Warner. I'd like to give you the opportunity to question the witnesses if you have any questions you'd like to ask at this point.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. COLLINS: Thank you, Senator Warner. I was just discussing with the ranking member that we are putting into our bill a mechanism to have a look back to see how the reforms have operated, so that it would be, I guess, an action-forcing mechanism to make sure that congressional oversight stays vigorous in this area. And we'd be happy to work further with you on that, and look forward to our meeting later today.

SEN. WARNER: I thank you.

SEN. COLLINS: My colleagues, I would note that I promised our two witnesses that they would be able to leave prior to noon today, in order to keep other commitments. So we are not going to be able to have time for a second round, but I would encourage-there are a lot of additional questions, and I would encourage them to be submitted for the record. And I would encourage our two distinguished witnesses to respond as promptly as possible to those questions, because we are on an expedited time frame.

We do hope to mark up legislation next week. We look forward to continuing to work very closely with you.

In closing, I want to thank you both for your extraordinary service to your country at a very difficult time, when we're facing many challenges, both domestically and internationally. Our nation's very fortunate to have public servants like you, who have served so well and so long, and we very much appreciate your helping us in the vital mission that this committee has been assigned.

This hearing record will remain open for five days. I'd like to ask Senator Lieberman if he has any closing remarks.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. COLLINS: Thank you.

I want to close by thanking our colleagues for being here today. I know Monday morning hearings are very difficult since my colleagues and myself go home each weekend, and I appreciate the efforts that they made to be here as well.

This hearing is now adjourned. (Sounds gavel.)