U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–581 PDF 2005

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

(II)

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

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia

CARL LEVIN, Michigan

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

RON WYDEN, Oregon

EVAN BAYH, Indiana

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland

JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey

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

(III)

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

(1)

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

2

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 diVerDate 03-FEB-2003 14:52 Sep 23, 2005 Jkt 020732 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 D:\DOCS\22581.TXT SSC1 PsN: SSC1
3

rection 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 informationsharing 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

4

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

5

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 effectivelymanaged intelligence community. Making this vision a reality will

6

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.

7

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

8

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

9

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.

10

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.

11

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 CapaVerDate 03-FEB-2003 14:52 Sep 23, 2005 Jkt 020732 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 D:\DOCS\22581.TXT SSC1 PsN: SSC1
12

bilities 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.

13

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 fund- ing 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

14

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.

15

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 recogVerDate 03-FEB-2003 14:52 Sep 23, 2005 Jkt 020732 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 D:\DOCS\22581.TXT SSC1 PsN: SSC1
16

nize 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

17

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.

18

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 IranContra 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 IranContra 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

19

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 alAni. 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

20

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,

21

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.

22

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

23

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 inVerDate 03-FEB-2003 14:52 Sep 23, 2005 Jkt 020732 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 D:\DOCS\22581.TXT SSC1 PsN: SSC1
24

telligence 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

25

the intelligence community in particular. As an Ambassador I have

had five CIA stations under my authority, I’ve had Defense

attache ́s, 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.

26

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

27

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.

28

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

29

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

30

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?

31

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 attache ́s 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.

32

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.

33

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.

34

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.

35

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?

36

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,

37

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 lessonslearned 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.

38

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 intelVerDate 03-FEB-2003 14:52 Sep 23, 2005 Jkt 020732 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 D:\DOCS\22581.TXT SSC1 PsN: SSC1
39

ligence 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.

40

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.

41

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;

42

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 21⁄2 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

43

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 21⁄2 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 21⁄2

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

44

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

45

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 posiVerDate 03-FEB-2003 14:52 Sep 23, 2005 Jkt 020732 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 D:\DOCS\22581.TXT SSC1 PsN: SSC1
46

tion 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.

47

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 SilbermanRobb 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 HouseSenate 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

48

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.

49

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 SilbermanRobb 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?

50

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.

51

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.]

(53)

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

ANSWERS TO PRE-HEARING QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO

AMBASSADOR JOHN NEGROPONTE FROM THE COMMITTEE

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE

Question 1.: Explain your understanding of the obligations of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) under Section 502 and Section 503 of the National Security

Act of 1947, including the responsibility to ensure that all departments, agencies,

and other entities of the United States Government involved in intelligence activities comply with the reporting requirements in those sections.

Answer: If confirmed as DNI, I will be committed to implementing the statutory

responsibility to keep Congress fully and currently informed of intelligence activities

and covert actions. I will ensure that all members of the Intelligence Community

understand and fulfill their commitment to do the same.

Question 2.: Describe your understanding of the role of the Joint Intelligence Community Council (JICC) in assisting the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) in his

responsibility to lead the Intelligence Community (IC). Explain the types of issues

on which you would seek JICC assistance, should you be confirmed as DNI.

Answer: The JICC was established to assist the DNI in creating a more unified

and effective IC. The IRTPA calls for the DNI to seek the advice of the JICC on

establishing requirements, developing budgets, financial management, monitoring

and evaluating the performance of the IC, and ensuring timely execution of the programs, policies and direction of the DNI. I would expect that the JICC may prove

to be a useful source of advice on other issues as well.

Question 3.: Should you be confirmed, do you intend to exercise the authority to

appoint individuals to serve as Deputy Directors of National Intelligence? If so, how

many Deputy Director positions (from one to four) will you create? What responsibilities will you assign to the Deputy Directors that you appoint?

Answer: Yes, if confirmed I will exercise the authority to appoint Deputy Directors

to assist in carrying out the DNI’s authorities and responsibilities. One of my first

tasks, if I am confirmed, will be to consult with my Principal Deputy and my staff

on the organization of the Office of the DNI (ODNI).

Question 4.a.b.c.: Explain your understanding of the responsibilities of the following officers:

a. the individual assigned responsibilities for analytic integrity under Section

1019 of the National Security Intelligence Reform Act of 2004.

b. the individual assigned responsibilities for safeguarding the objectivity of intelligence analysis under Section 1020 of the National Security Intelligence Reform Act

of 2004.

c. the General Counsel of the Office of the DNI.

Answer: The officer or entity assigned responsibility for analytic integrity is

charged with ensuring that finished intelligence products produced by any element

or elements of the IC are timely, objective, independent of political considerations,

based upon all sources of available intelligence, and employ the standards of proper

analytic tradecraft. Specific responsibilities are set out in Section 1019.

The officer assigned within the Office of the DNI to safeguard objectivity in analysis shall be available to analysts within the O/DNI to counsel, conduct arbitration,

offer recommendations, and, as appropriate, initiate inquiries into real or perceived

problems of analytic tradecraft or politicization, biased reporting, or lack of objectivity in intelligence analysis.

The statutory General Counsel is the chief legal advisor of the O/DNI and shall

perform such functions as the DNI may prescribe.

PERSONNEL

Question 5.a.b.: Explain the DNI’s authority to direct the transfer or detail of particular personnel from one element of the IC to another.

a. If the head of an IC element or the head of the concerned department or agency

objects to the transfer of particular personnel from one element of the IC to another,

explain what authority the DNI has to direct the transfer or detail notwithstanding

the objection.

b. Explain the principles governing personnel transfers that a DNI should consider when drafting personnel transfer procedures with the heads of concerned departments and agencies.

Answer: The personnel transfer authorities of the DNI provide a strong mechanism to direct resources to address evolving national security needs. Personnel

transfer procedures are governed by the principle that transfers be to a higher priority intelligence activity and that the transfer supports an emergent need, improves program effectiveness, or increases efficiency.

138

Question 6.: Explain the DNI’s authority to ensure that IC personnel are diverse,

skilled, and properly trained and that those personnel are assigned or detailed to

national intelligence centers or other IC elements during the course of their careers.

Answer: The IRTPA provides several tools to facilitate the development and flow

of personnel across the IC, including the authority to provide for education and

training, the ability to create financial and other incentives, and the establishment

of occupational standards. If confirmed, I would use these authorities to address the

personnel requirements of the Intelligence Community. I will attach great importance to cultivating the effectiveness and morale of our intelligence workforce.

Question 7.a.b.c.d.: Explain the DNI’s authority to terminate the employment of

any officer or employee of the IC outside the Office of the DNI.

a. If the DNI has this authority, what effect, if any, would the objection of the

head of the concerned IC element or the head of the concerned department or agency have on the exercise of this authority?

b. Explain the DNI’s authority to terminate the employment of the head of an IC

element (other than a Presidential-appointee), or otherwise hold the IC element

head accountable, based on an action by that individual that disregards a DNI decision or position on any given matter.

c: What, if any, authorities does the DNI have to hold particular officers or employees of the IC accountable for poor performance or reward or promote a particular officer or employee for outstanding performance?

d. What actions, if any, should be taken to strengthen accountability for all officers and employees of the IC?

Answer: My understanding is that the National Security Act does not give the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) direct authority to discipline or terminate the

employment of an employee of another department or agency of the United States

Government. If a matter arises concerning the performance of an employee of the

IC outside of the office of the DNI which I believe requires attention, I would pursue

the matter with the relevant agency head. The DNI is authorized to establish personnel standards across the Intelligence Community (IC) that may include standards of conduct and accountability.

INFORMATION ACCESS

Question 8.a.b.c.d.: Explain the DNI’s authority to formulate, implement, and enforce IC-wide information access policies.

a. What actions will you take, should you be confirmed as DNI, to enhance information access by ensuring that all IC analysts—with a valid security clearance and

a need-to-know—have access to pertinent information contained in human intelligence operations cables, raw signals intelligence, or other such information not

currently made available to analysts?

b. Some statutory barriers to information access have been removed by the USA

PATRIOT Act and Intelligence Authorization legislation. Explain whether additional

modifications to Executive Order 12333 or other applicable authorities or statutes

will be required before the IC can operate like a true ‘‘information enterprise’’—

where information is accessible by all IC elements.

c. Explain the DNI’s authority, notwithstanding the objections of the heads of IC

elements or the heads of concerned departments or agencies, to direct the head of

an IC element to comply with DNI policies and directives on information access. If

the DNI lacks this authority, explain what authority, if any, the DNI has to ensure

that the head of an IC element complies with DNI policies and directives on information access.

d. Explain the information technology challenges facing the IC and the DNI’s authority, through the Chief Information Officer for the IC or otherwise, to ensure that

the IC develops an enterprise architecture and maintains information technology

systems in a manner that enables and promotes DNI policies and directives on information access.

Answer: The DNI has been given a variety of authorities to determine access to

intelligence information, including the authority to ‘‘manage and direct’’ the dissemination of national intelligence, to set uniform security and information technology

standards, and to approve procurements authority over all enterprise architecturerelated information technology items funded in the NIP. In addition the DNI will

have a statutory CIO. If confirmed, I will utilize the DNI’s authorities to the fullest

extent to review any barriers that exist and to ensure maximum availability of and

access to intelligence information.

139

BUDGET

Question 9.a.b.c.: Describe your understanding of the authority of the DNI concerning the National Intelligence Program (NIP), specifically:

a. how a DNI should apply independent judgment to the NIP budget submissions

from the heads of agencies or organizations within the IC and the heads of their

respective departments;

b. how a DNI should resolve NIP budget disputes, including disputes involving

budget priorities, between himself and the heads of IC elements or the heads of concerned departments and agencies; and

c. the importance of the DNI authority to ensure the effective execution of the annual budget for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the U.S. Government.

Answer: The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) is responsible for developing

and determining the NIP budget and, if confirmed, I will make the final decisions

on the budget that is submitted to the President.

The DNI should assess the current budget resolution practices and develop an appropriate resolution process in accordance with the DNI’s budget authorities. The

DNI’s authority to ensure effective execution of the annual budget for intelligence

and intelligence related activities is important because it is part of the mechanism

for creating a unified Intelligence Community. In enacting intelligence reform, Congress and the President were clear that the DNI have full budget authority to manage the IC as a unified enterprise and if confirmed I look forward to exercising these

authorities to best effect a more unified IC.

Question 10.a.b.: Explain the DNI’s authority, notwithstanding the objections of

the heads of IC elements or the heads of concerned departments and agencies, to

terminate or reduce funding for a program in the NIP.

a. Explain the DNI’s authority, notwithstanding the objections of the heads of IC

elements or the heads of concerned departments and agencies, to prevent a major

system acquisition funded wholly from the NIP from proceeding through a milestone

decision. If the DNI lacks this authority, explain under what circumstances, and explain the DNI’s options for preventing the program from proceeding.

b. If the DNI terminates a program by refusing to fund it in the NIP, but the

Secretary of Defense still supports the program and provides funding for the program in the Joint Military Intelligence Program (JMIP), the Tactical Intelligence

and Related Activities (TIARA), or another budget account, what authority does the

DNI have to prevent the Secretary of Defense from taking such action?

Answer: The IRTPA provides that the DNI has exclusive milestone decision authority (MDA) for intelligence programs within the NIP, except that with respect to

Department of Defense programs, the DNI has MDA jointly with the Secretary of

Defense. If the DNI and the Secretary of Defense cannot reach agreement where

a joint milestone decision is required, the President shall resolve the difference. The

DNI has the authority to participate in the development of the Department of Defense’s JMIP and TIARA budgets. If confirmed, I would exercise the budget authority conferred on me by the IRTPA to the fullest.

Question 11.a.b.c.: Explain the research and development challenges facing the IC

and the DNI’s authority, through the Director of Science and Technology in the Office of the DNI or otherwise, to ensure that the research and development activities

of the IC are consistent with DNI priorities, regardless of how the activities are

funded (NIP or otherwise).

a. Explain the DNI’s authority to ensure funding for such activities in the NIP.

b. Explain the DNI’s authority to prevent IC elements from circumventing DNI

research and development decisions and priorities by using separate budget accounts (e.g., JMIP, TIARA, or otherwise) to fund activities the DNI has previously

rejected for inclusion in the NIP,

c. Should you be confirmed as DNI, will you ensure that the research and development activities of the IC:

i. address system requirements from the tasking of collection to final dissemination of collected and analyzed intelligence (also known as ‘‘end-to-end architecture);

ii. are prioritized in a manner that addresses not only deficiencies in collection,

but also deficiencies in analysis and dissemination of collected intelligence information; and

iii. ensure interoperability of national intelligence, tactical military intelligence,

and military systems?

Answer: The DNI has the authority to develop and determine and to ensure the

effective execution of the annual budget for intelligence and intelligence related activities. In addition, the Office of the DNI will have a Director of Science and Technology. If confirmed, I will assess and prioritize the research and development chalVerDate 03-FEB-2003 14:52 Sep 23, 2005 Jkt 020732 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 D:\DOCS\22581.TXT SSC1 PsN: SSC1
140

lenges facing the Intelligence Community, including those outlined in your questions, and I will utilize the Director of Science and Technology to oversee Intelligence Community research and development activities to ensure the efficient and

effective use of resources. As part of that process I would ensure that the Office of

the DNI participate in the development of DoD’s budgets for JMIP and TIARA to

coordinate interoperability between national and tactical systems.

Question 12.a.b.: With respect to acquisitions of major systems that are ‘‘splitfunded’’ (i.e., a portion of the NIP and a portion in the JMIP, TIARA, or other budget account), explain the DNI’s authority, notwithstanding the objections of the heads

of IC elements or the heads of concerned departments and agencies, to terminate

such programs.

a. Explain the DNI’s authority, notwithstanding the objections of the heads of IC

elements or the heads of concerned departments and agencies, to prevent such acquisitions from proceeding through a milestone decision. If the DNI lacks this authority, what are the DNI’s options for preventing such programs from proceeding?

b. If the DNI terminates funding for such a program in the NIP, but the Secretary

of Defense still supports the program and provides funding for the program in the

JMIP or TIARA, what authority does the DNI have to prevent the Secretary of Defense from funding the program?

Answer: The DNI has the authority and responsibility to develop and determine

the National Intelligence Program budget, a process that will require the DNI to

make NIP funding decisions. In addition, the DNI has the authority to participate

in the development of the Department of Defense’s JMIP and TIARA budgets. If

confirmed, I intend to have the Office of the DNI participate in DoD’s development

of the JMIP and TIARA budgets. The IRTPA provides that the DNI has exclusive

milestone decision authority (MDA) for major systems acquisitions funded solely

within the NIP, except that with respect to Department of Defense programs, the

DNI has MDA jointly with the Secretary of Defense. If the DNI and the Secretary

of Defense cannot reach agreement when a joint milestone decision is required, the

President shall resolve the difference.

Question 13.a.b.: During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Porter Goss informed the

Committee that he shared the Committee’s frustration that the estimated cost of

procuring major systems, such as satellites, routinely fall far below the actual cost

of procuring those systems. Mr. Goss assured the Committee that he would comply

with the legal requirements of Section 506A of the National Security Act of 1947,

including preparing independent cost estimates for each major system to be acquired by the IC, budgeting to those estimates, and, if necessary, explaining why

budgets depart from such estimates.

a. Will you make the same assurance to the Committee?

b. Should you be confirmed, how will you address budgetary shortfalls caused by

funding to levels identified in independent cost estimates, especially in the National

Reconnaissance Program?

Answer: If confirmed, I will comply with the legal requirements for independent

cost estimates that are applicable to National Intelligence Program acquisitions. If

confirmed, I will assess budgetary shortfalls by analyzing the program’s capabilities

against the President’s intelligence priorities.

RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

Question 14.a.b.: Explain the DNI’s authority to supervise, direct, or control the

manner in which the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (D/CIA) exercises

his statutory responsibility to provide overall direction for and coordination of the

collection of national intelligence outside the United States through human sources

(i.e., the D/CIA’s ‘‘national human intelligence (HUMINT) manager’’ responsibilities).

a. Does the DNI have the authority to mandate that the D/CIA permit another

IC element (e.g., the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) or the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI)) to proceed with a human intelligence operational activity that

was originally rejected by the D/CIA, a Chief of Station, or other D/CIA designee?

b. Does the DNI have the authority, notwithstanding the decision and continued

objection of the D/CIA, a Chief of Station, or other D/CIA designee, to authorize an

IC element to conduct a human intelligence operational activity that was originally

rejected by the D/CIA, a Chief of Station, or other D/CIA designee?

Answer: The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) has broad tasking authority

over the Intelligence Community (IC) to ‘‘manage and direct’’ the tasking of collection of national intelligence, which includes approving collection requirements and

resolving conflicts in the tasking of national assets. The Director of CIA (D/CIA) has

statutory responsibility for running the day-to-day operations of the CIA and for

141

providing the direction and coordination of HUMINT activities outside the United

States for the elements of the U.S. Government authorized to undertake such activities. In this regard, the D/CIA reports to the DNI regarding the activities of the

CIA. If an instance were to arise in which an element of the IC disagreed with the

decision of the D/CIA, the DNI would resolve the difference and determine the best

course of action.

Question 15.: Explain the DNI’s authority to supervise, direct, or control the manner in which covert actions are conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Answer: The Director of CIA (DICIA) reports to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) regarding the activities of the CIA, including covert action. The DNI

is responsible for fulfilling Congressional notification requirements and for ensuring

that the CIA and other IC elements comply with the Constitution and laws of the

United States.

Question 16.a.b.: With respect to foreign liaison activities of the IC:

a. Explain the DNI’s authority to supervise, direct, or control the manner in which

the D/CIA exercises his statutory responsibility to coordinate the relationships between IC elements and the intelligence and security services of foreign governments

or international organizations.

b. Explain the DNI’s authority to mandate that the D/CIA permit another IC element (e.g., DIA or FBI) to conduct a liaison relationship with an intelligence or security services of a foreign government or international organization.

Answer: Under the IRTPA, the Director of CIA’s (D/CIA’s) authority to coordinate

foreign intelligence relationships is exercised ‘‘under the direction of the DNI ‘‘ If

confirmed, I will work closely with the D/CIA to implement this authority to ensure

activities across the IC are appropriately considered and coordinated.

RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL COUNTERTERRORISM CENTER

Question 17.a.b.c.d.: Explain the DNI’s authority to supervise, direct, or control

the manner in which the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (D/

NCTC) exercises his statutory responsibility to plan, and track the progress of, joint

counterterrorism operations.

a. Explain the DNI’s authority to direct the D/NCTC to modify a strategic operational plan for joint counterterrorism operations.

b. Explain the DNI’s authority to prevent an IC element from participating in, or

complying with, a D/NCTC-approved strategic operational plan.

c. Explain the authority of the DNI to modify the role or responsibility assigned

to an IC element under a D/NCTC-approved strategic operational plan.

d. Explain the authority of the DNI, notwithstanding the objections of the

DINCTC, to terminate funding in the NIP for a D/NCTC-approved strategic operational plan for a joint counterterrorism operation.

Answer: As the principal intelligence advisor to the President and manager of the

National Intelligence Program (NIP), the DNI is responsible for the effective use

and performance of intelligence assets against all national security missions. Under

the IRTPA, the DNI is responsible for overseeing the National Counterterrorism

Center (NCTC). The Director of the NCTC (D/NCTC) reports to the DNI with respect to the NCTC budget and programs, counterterrorism analysis, and the conduct

of intelligence operations implemented by other elements of the Intelligence Community (IC). The DNI has the authority to direct the D/NCTC to modify a strategic

operational plan for joint counterterrorism intelligence operations.

The DNI has the authority to terminate NIP-funded programs in accordance with

the requirements for Office of Management and Budget approval and consultation

with affected entities, subject to the limitations specified in the transfer and reprogramming provisions of the IRTPA, including notification of Congress.

COLLECTION TASKING

Question 18.: Explain the DNI’s authority to direct an IC element to collect national intelligence, including foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, concerning:

a. a particular subject or topic; and

b. a particular individual, including a U.S. person.

c. with respect to both a. and b. explain the DNI’s authority to direct the national

intelligence, including foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, collection activities

of the FBI.

Answer: The IRTPA gives the DNI broad authority to ‘‘manage and direct’’ the

tasking of collection, analysis, production, and dissemination of national intelligence

by IC elements, including those of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This tasking

authority includes approving requirements on specific areas of interest, as well as

the collection of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence against specific individVerDate 03-FEB-2003 14:52 Sep 23, 2005 Jkt 020732 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 D:\DOCS\22581.TXT SSC1 PsN: SSC1
142

uals, in compliance with all U.S. laws and policy related to the collection of U.S.

person information.

USA PATRIOT ACT

Question 19.: On December 31, 2005, several provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act,

and some provisions from other Acts, will ‘‘sunset’’ (cease to have effect). Do you

support the reauthorization of the provisions subject to the USA PATRIOT Act ‘‘sunset’’ provision?

Answer: Decisions regarding the sunset provisions and the reauthorization of specific elements of the USA PATRIOT Act are matters best addressed by the Congress

and the President. If confirmed, I will abide by all laws, including any changes the

Congress and the President make to the USA PATRIOT Act.

NATIONAL SECURITY THREATS

Question 20.: What are the principal threats to national security with which the

IC must concern itself in the coming years?

Answer: Terrorism and WMD proliferation are the two principal threats to national security. Nevertheless, the Intelligence Community must remain vigilant to

the emergence of new threats to national security.

Question 21.: In your opinion, has the IC done an adequate job in adjusting its

policies, planning, training, and programs to address current and future threats?

Answer: As recognized by Congress in passing the IRTPA, much more needs to

be done—and can be done—to address current and future threats.

As the President has said, ‘‘we will work to give our intelligence professionals the

tools they need. Our collection and analysis of intelligence will never be perfect, but

in an age where our margin for error is getting smaller, in an age in which we are

at war, the consequences of underestimating a threat could be tens of thousands of

innocent lives. And my administration will continue to make intelligence reforms

that will allow us to identify threats before they fully emerge so we can take effective action to protect the American people.’’

If confirmed, I am committed to addressing these questions as a matter of utmost

priority.

FUTURE OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY

Question 22.: What do you consider to be the highest priority challenges facing

the IC? As DNI, what would you do, specifically, to address these challenges?

Answer: Aside from specific national security threats, the highest priority challenge for the IC is strengthening its sense of community through such practices as

improved information sharing and improved personnel policies. If confirmed, I will

work closely with senior IC officials to ensure that the IC works together effectively

to address these threats.

Question 23.: Explain whether the collection requirements and priorities of the IC

are appropriate to address current and future threats. If not, explain what actions

you will take as DNI, should you be confirmed, to realign collection requirements

and priorities.

Answer: Collection requirements and priorities must be reviewed, vetted, and revalidated on a continuous basis. If confirmed, I will review current processes and

make adjustments as necessary to ensure that this is done.

Question 24.: Explain your views concerning the quality of intelligence analysis

conducted by the IC. What steps, if any, do you believe are necessary to improve

the quality of intelligence analysis within the IC, including the use of alternative

analysis, competitive analysis, and ‘‘red teaming’’?

Answer: The quality of analysis can always be improved. The IRTPA gives the

DNI the responsibility and mechanisms to facilitate improvement. Techniques such

as alternative analysis can play an important role. If confirmed, I am committed to

achieving the highest possible standard of analysis by the IC.

Question 25.: As DNI, how would you ensure that intelligence consumers receive

national intelligence that is timely, objective, independent of political considerations,

and based upon all sources available to the IC?

Answer: If confirmed, I would use all the tools available to the DNI and the IC

to seek to fulfill this obligation.

PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

Question 26.: Describe the efforts of the IC to protect privacy and civil liberties

and what, if any, challenges face the IC in these areas. Explain the role of the Civil

Liberties Protection Officer, of privacy and civil liberties officers, and of the Privacy

143

and Civil Liberties Board in ensuring that the IC complies with the United States

Constitution and applicable laws, regulations, and implementing guidelines governing intelligence activities.

Answer: Historically, IC components have operated under Attorney General guidelines for the collection, retention, and dissemination of U.S. person information. The

IRTPA creates additional safeguards through the Civil Liberties Protection Officer

and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board, who have the specific responsibility to

ensure the protection of civil liberties and privacy.

Question 4.a.b.c.: Explain your understanding of the responsibilities of the following officers:

a. the individual assigned responsibilities for analytic integrity under Section

1019 of the National Security Intelligence Reform Act of 2004.

b. the individual assigned responsibilities for safeguarding the objectivity of intelligence analysis under Section 1020 of the National Security Intelligence Reform Act

of 2004.

c. the General Counsel of the Office of the DNI.

Answer: The officer or entity assigned responsibility for analytic integrity is

charged with ensuring that finished intelligence products produced by any element

or elements of the IC are timely, objective, independent of political considerations,

based upon all sources of available intelligence, and employ the standards of proper

analytic tradecraft. This function can make an important contribution to the credibility and value of the intelligence community’s work. If confirmed, I would expect

and rely upon this officer or entity to carry out the specified functions vigorously.

The regular and annual audits will reinforce the imperative for high standards

throughout the community both by deterring biased, politicized, or incomplete analysis and by identifying areas for improvement through lessons learned and recommendations. I feel very strongly that providing objective national intelligence to

the President, the Congress, and the departments and agencies is a critical national

task and I look forward to working with Congress to ensure we meet the highest

standards of analytic integrity.

The officer assigned within the Office of the DNI to safeguard objectivity in analysis will be available to analysts within the O/DNI to counsel, conduct arbitration,

offer recommendations, and, as appropriate, initiate inquiries into real or perceived

problems of analytic tradecraft or politicization, biased reporting, or lack of objectivity in intelligence analysis. I view this function as important to meeting the high

expectations our Nation’s policymakers place on the integrity of the IC’s analytical

product. The existence of this officer should be well-advertised within the Office, and

the officer selected should perform his or her functions much the way an ombudsman would, with discretion, neutrality, and a commitment to determining whether

O/DNI analysts are performing their jobs with proper tradecraft and objectivity.

This officer will also have direct access to me and my senior subordinates to raise

any issue related to the objectivity of analysis produced in O/DNI.

The statutory General Counsel is the chief legal advisor of the O/DNI and shall

perform such functions as the DNI may prescribe. I view the GC and the Office he

or she will manage, as playing a critical role in ensuring all employees or contractors assigned to the O/DNI comply with U.S. law and any applicable regulations and

directives. I would expect the GC will be a key member of my senior advisory team,

provide legal and ethical counsel to O/DNI managers and staff members alike, and

participate in all significant decisions taken in the Office.

Question 5.a.b.: Explain the DNI’s authority to direct the transfer or detail of particular personnel from one element of the IC to another.

a. If the head of an IC element or the head of the concerned department or agency

objects to the transfer of particular personnel from one element of the IC to another,

explain what authority the DNI has to direct the transfer or detail notwithstanding

the objection.

b. Explain the principles governing personnel transfers that a DNI should consider when drafting personnel transfer procedures with the heads of concerned departments and agencies.

Answer: The personnel transfer authorities of the DNI provide a strong mechanism to direct resources to address evolving national security needs. While these authorities permit the DNI to move personnel around the community with a large degree of discretion, if confirmed I would plan to engage with the heads of affected

departments and agencies and take full account of their unique mission needs. In

addition to the statutory conditions governing personnel transfers, I will adhere to

procedures developed in coordination with the relevant heads of departments and

agencies to ensure that, to the extent practicable, such transfers are effected

smoothly and with minimal disruption to other activities underway in the Community. The extent to which I am authorized to direct a transfer over the objection of

144

a department or agency head will depend, at least in part, on the procedures developed. In developing such procedures, I would expect to consider, among other factors, the likely impact of a proposed transfer on the affected organizations or units,

programs or operations, and individuals, as well as the perceived benefits organizationally and operationally by virtue of that transfer.

Certainly the Congress has laid down guidance on the principles that should govern transfer of personnel: transfers should be to a higher priority intelligence activity and support an emergent need; they should also improve effectiveness and increase efficiency. If confirmed, one of my early undertakings will be to give further

definition, perhaps through the Joint Intelligence Community Council, to these

terms. However, as head of the Intelligence Community and empowered to manage

it as a single unified enterprise, I intend to exercise my authority to the fullest for

the benefit of the country.

Question 8.a.b.c.d.: Explain the DNI’s authority to formulate, implement, and enforce IC-wide information access policies.

a. What actions will you take, should you be confirmed as DNI, to enhance information access by ensuring that all IC analysts—with a valid security clearance and

a need-to-know—have access to pertinent information contained in human intelligence operations cables, raw signals intelligence, or other such information not

currently made available to analysts?

b. Some statutory barriers to information access have been removed by the USA

PATRIOT Act and Intelligence Authorization legislation. Explain whether additional

modifications to Executive Order 12333 or other applicable authorities or statutes

will be required before the IC can operate like a true ‘‘information enterprise’’—

where information is accessible by all IC elements.

c. Explain the DNI’s authority, notwithstanding the objections of the heads of IC

elements or the heads of concerned departments or agencies, to direct the head of

an IC element to comply with DNI policies and directives on information access. If

the DNI lacks this authority, explain what authority, if any, the DNI has to ensure

that the head of an IC element complies with DNI policies and directives on information access.

d. Explain the information technology challenges facing the IC and the DNI’s authority, through the Chief Information Officer for the IC or otherwise, to ensure that

the IC develops an enterprise architecture and maintains information technology

systems in a manner that enables and promotes DNI policies and directives on information access.

Answer: The DNI has been granted a host of authorities to foster greater access

to intelligence information, including the authority to ‘‘manage and direct’’ the dissemination of national intelligence by intelligence community (IC) elements, to set

uniform security and information technology standards within the IC, and to approve procurements over all enterprise architecture-related information technology

items funded in the NIP. In addition there will be a statutory CIO for the IC. If

confirmed, I will utilize the DNI’s authorities to the fullest extent to review any barriers that exist and, consistent with national security requirements, ensure maximum availability of and access to intelligence information within the IC. This is

also an issue to which I expect to devote considerable attention at the outset of my

tenure.

If confirmed, I expect to build upon the inter-agency work that has been done

under Executive Order 13356 by way of developing common standards for the sharing of terrorism information. Such standards might include ways of protecting information so that it can be distributed at the lowest classification level possible and

minimizing the use of classification compartments. I believe it is important for analysts to have the tools necessary to do their jobs.

I am not aware at this time of any legislative or regulatory impediments to information sharing within the IC. The DNI authorities in this regard appear on their

face to be sufficient to meet the statutory objectives. To the extent that the ODNI

CIO or I identify any such barriers as we implement our program within the IC,

I would so report next February as required by statute.

Likewise, I will need more time to understand the nature and extent of technological challenges we face in ensuring greater intelligence access throughout the IC.

I expect the Departments and agencies to be cooperative and I am confident we

could work constructively together. I do not foresee inadequate DNI authorities as

a stumbling block, with respect to meeting our stated objectives, although if necessary I will seek the requisite additional authorities.

Question 10.a.b.: Explain the DNI’s authority, notwithstanding the objections of

the heads of IC elements or the heads of concerned departments and agencies, to

terminate or reduce funding for a program in the NIP.

145

a. Explain the DNI’s authority, notwithstanding the objections of the heads of IC

elements or the heads of concerned departments and agencies, to prevent a major

system acquisition funded wholly from the NIP from proceeding through a milestone

decision. If the DNI lacks this authority, explain under what circumstances, and explain the DNI’s options for preventing the program from proceeding.

b. If the DNI terminates a program by refusing to fund it in the NIP, but the

Secretary of Defense still supports the program and provides funding for the program in the Joint Military Intelligence Program (JMIP), the Tactical Intelligence

and Related Activities (TIARA), or another budget account, what authority does the

DNI have to prevent the Secretary of Defense from taking such action?

Answer: The DNI is authorized to develop and determine the NIP budget and to

effect with broad discretion funds transfers and reprogramming within the NIP.

Both of these authorities would enable the DNI, subject to various conditions and/

or restrictions, to effectively terminate or reduce funding for a program in the NIP.

I hasten to add, however, that no such decision would be made lightly, particularly

if a department or agency head expressed concerns about that program’s status. Ultimately, however, the law vests in the DNI great authority over the NIP and, if

confirmed, I would intend to exercise that authority to effect a more unified Intelligence Community.

The DNI has exclusive milestone decision authority (MDA) for intelligence programs funded wholly within the NIP with respect to acquisitions of non-Department

of Defense (DoD) major systems. That authority, in principle, would allow the DNI

alone to prevent such a program from proceeding through a milestone decision. With

respect to the acquisition of a DoD major system, however, the DNI and Secretary

of Defense have joint milestone decision authority for intelligence programs. By law,

any inability by the DNI and Secretary of Defense to resolve differences under this

joint MDA arrangement would be taken to the President.

The Secretary of Defense has significant discretion over the JMIP and TIARA programs while the DNI has substantial control over the NIP. This creates a natural

tension but also encourages the two principals to work cooperatively and constructively together and to forge compromise. For his part, the DNI is authorized to participate in the budget development of the JMIP and TIARA and is to be consulted

by the Secretary of Defense with respect to any funds transfer or reprogramming

under the JMIP. If confirmed, I would fully expect to exercise these budget authorities. The Secretary of Defense and I have agreed to work closely on these and other

issues.

Question 12.a.b.: With respect to acquisitions of major systems that are ‘‘splitfunded’’ (i.e., a portion of the NIP and a portion in the JMIP, TIARA, or other budget account), explain the DNI’s authority, notwithstanding the objections of the heads

of IC elements or the heads of concerned departments and agencies, to terminate

such programs.

a. Explain the DNI’s authority, notwithstanding the objections of the heads of IC

elements or the heads of concerned departments and agencies, to prevent such acquisitions from proceeding through a milestone decision. If the DNI lacks this authority, what are the DNI’s options for preventing such programs from proceeding?

b. If the DNI terminates funding for such a program in the NIP, but the Secretary

of Defense still supports the program and provides funding for the program in the

JMIP or TIARA, what authority does the DNI have to prevent the Secretary of Defense from funding the program?

Answer: The law provides the DNI with MDA only for acquisitions funded solely

within the NIP. Where DoD programs are concerned, the DNI has MDA jointly with

the Secretary of Defense. Thus, the DNI does not have the authority to unilaterally

terminate or otherwise affect programs partially funded in the JMIP or TIARA. If

the DNI and the Secretary of Defense cannot agree regarding DoD programs funded

in the NIP, the President decides. Because the law directs the DNI and the Secretary of Defense to work, together in many budget areas, if confirmed, I expect to

build procedures to facilitate resolution of disputes. However, the President and

Congress vested in the DNI new and expanded budgetary and acquisition authorities and I would exercise them to the fullest to achieve a more unified Intelligence

Community.

USA PATRIOT ACT

Question 19.: On December 31, 2005, several provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act,

and some provisions from other Acts, will ‘‘sunset’’ (cease to have effect). Do you

support the reauthorization of the provisions subject to the USA PATRIOT Act ‘‘sunset’’ provision?

146

Answer: Yes, I support renewal of the PATRIOT Act. The President has called on

Congress to reauthorize the Patriot Act and I support its extension also. I especially

embrace those provisions that now allow for the robust exchange of information between the intelligence and law enforcement communities, and believe that the Act’s

FISA enhancements, based on FBI Director Mueller’s testimony and other public

evidence, justify continued effect.

Congress passed the PATRIOT Act with overwhelming bipartisan support after

September 11th. As Attorney General Gonzales testified recently, ‘‘this law has been

integral to the government’s prosecution of the war on terrorism. We have dismantled terrorist cells, disrupted terrorist plots and captured terrorists before they could

strike.’’ I look forward to further studying the Patriot Act if confirmed and considering whether additional improvements in the area of intelligence collection are

needed to better prosecute the war on terrorism.

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE TO

AMBASSADOR JOHN NEGROPONTE, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTEL- LIGENCE

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR BOND

INFORMATION ACCESS

Question 1. In one of your responses to our committee’s questions-for-the-record

you state that you will utilize the DNI’s authorities to the fullest extent to ensure

maximum availability of, and access to, intelligence information within the intelligence community. You state that you intend to build on work done under the auspices of Executive Order 13356 to develop common standards for the sharing of terrorism information. I was pleased, though, to also hear you express the reality that

we have valid needs to protect our sources. So it seems to me that the trick is getting the right information to the right people, but ONLY the right people. In other

words, enforce the need-to-know policy within the community.

Do you feel there should be an instance in which a CIA Directorate of Intelligence

analyst working a specific issue is privy to information that a State INR or DIA analyst working the exact same issue is not? If not, do you have the authorities to

prevent this type of information hoarding?

Answer. If confirmed, I would use the DNI’s statutory authorities to ensure maximum availability of and access to intelligence information within the IC, consistent

with national security requirements including the legitimate need to protect sources

and methods.

Because I have not yet begun a thorough review of current practices and concerns,

I would need more time to determine the exact contours of an improved informationsharing system. However, I am confident that we can work constructively together

within the IC to resolve current concerns and meet our shared objectives. I believe

that I have ample authority both to prevent inappropriate hoarding of information

and to enforce the need-to-know principle as appropriate, but would not hesitate to

seek additional authorities should that prove necessary. I understand the importance of the need-to-know policy and you correctly describe the challenge of balancing this with the need to make sure that information gets to all the analysts

who need it. As to your hypothetical, it is difficult to answer without additional information. Information access would likely be influenced by many factors. My goal

is to ensure that all possible information is available to the analytical community

in order to achieve the best possible analytical product.

Question 2. In light of the recently released report of the WMD Commission, do

you feel that these information-sharing standards should be limited to terrorism-related information?

Answer. In general, I believe there should be common standards for sharing all

intelligence information, including terrorism-related information. However such

common standards should enhance and not hamper access to intelligence information. As I said above, however, if confirmed, I would need to more thoroughly review

and assess the current situation and proposals before determining any final system.

Question 3. Frequently, the need-to-know policy is often used as an excuse by collectors to zealously hoard ‘‘their’’ information at the expense of others who need it

to do their job. This gets to ownership of information and who makes the call as

whether a person has a need-to-know. Who, in your mind, ‘‘owns’’ information collected by the intelligence community? Who should make the call as to who gets access to that information?

Answer. I have agreed with the Committee that we need to move away from information ‘‘sharing’’ and more toward information ‘‘access’’ as ‘‘sharing’’ implies ownership. Any information collected is owned by the American people not any particular

agency, and it must be productively used by all relevant agencies to protect their

interests and those of our allies. If confirmed, I intend to use the authorities given

to me to establish policies and procedures to ensure that any conflict between the

need-to-share intelligence information and the need-to-protect sources and methods

is appropriately balanced. In order to address the specific issues raised, I would review the current policies and procedures in place to ensure that any unnecessary

barriers are removed. The principal authority with respect to access to intelligence

information resides with the DNI

FIXING THE FBI

Question 4. The WMD Commission stated that ‘‘[the FBI] is on its way to becoming an effective intelligence agency, but will never arrive if it insists on using only

its own map.’’ I’ve met with Director Mueller who—while acknowledging many

159

bumps along the way, such as the recent Virtual Case File fiasco—has assured me

of the progress he is making toward turning the bureau into a valued member of

the intelligence community.

Do you have a ‘‘map’’ for the FBI’s transition to an effective intelligence agency?

Answer. As the WMD Commission noted, the FBI has made some progress in

building an intelligence capacity since September 11, 2001, but more needs to be

done. I have read with interest the WMD Commission’s recent recommendations for

the restructuring of the FBI. I have met with Director Mueller and look forward to

working closely with him if confirmed. I know that Director Mueller is keeping an

open mind on this issue and I would intend to participate in the review of the WMD

Commission’s recommendations to ensure that the concerns raised are adequately

and effectively addressed.

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR LEVIN

RESPONSIVENESS TO CONGRESS

Question 1. Ambassador Negroponte, Many of us have been very frustrated by the

lack of responsiveness of parts of the Intelligence Community and other federal

agencies to Congress, and to requests for documents and for declassification. There

have been recent problems getting documents on subjects ranging from intelligence

assessments on Iraq to detainee abuse. In one instance, the Armed Services Committee waited more than a year to get answers to Questions for the Record from

the former DCI. In other instances, the CIA promised to provide documents and

then failed to do so for six to nine months. This is simply unacceptable.

If confirmed, will you commit to ensuring timely and responsive information to

members of the Committee, and will you make every effort to respond to requests

for existing documents within 15 days?

Answer. Working with this Committee and being responsive to its information

needs would be a high priority for me if I am confirmed. If we are unable to make

a substantive response within 15 days, we would at a minimum provide the Committee with an interim response indicating that we are working on the request and

explaining what is involved in developing a substantive response.

IC LEADERSHIP KEEPING INFORMED

Question 2. Ambassador Negroponte: The most famous 16 words concerning exaggerated intelligence about Iraq were the words of President Bush in his January

2003 State of the Union speech concerning the allegation that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium from Africa: ‘‘The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’’

It is incredible that these words were inserted into the President’s speech, given

that the CIA had successfully requested that similar words be removed from a draft

of the President’s October 7, 2002 speech in Cincinnati. That effort included a personal call from DCI Tenet to the Deputy National Security Advisor to ask that the

language be eliminated.

Remarkably, DCI Tenet did not even hear or read the State of the Union contemporaneously, so he was unaware that the offending words had been put back in that

speech until several months later.

Also remarkable, according to news reports, former DCI Tenet and former Deputy

DCI McLaughlin were not even aware that a foreign intelligence service and CIA

officials doubted the veracity of Curveball until the Silberman-Robb Commission

told them.

Do you agree that there should be a formal review process for major statements

by senior policymakers about intelligence matters, and that the head of the U.S. Intelligence Community should be aware of such public statements about intelligence

and aware of Intelligence Community concerns that a major source may be a fabricator?

Answer. I certainly agree that the Intelligence Community should be aware of concerns about the reliability of sources, regardless of whether it relates to a speech.

I am not aware of what procedures are currently in place for reviewing the intelligence aspects of major speeches. If confirmed, I would certainly look into this issue

and assure myself that the Intelligence Community is providing the best possible

support to policymakers in this area. Specifically, I would work with the President’s

staff to ensure that any portions of his speeches referring to intelligence information

would be double-checked with the Intelligence Community beforehand.

160

DETAINEE ABUSE DOCUMENTS

Question 3. Ambassador Negroponte: There are a couple of memos related to detainee interrogation that are of great interest to this Committee and to Congress.

They are:

1. A memo, signed by Associate Attorney General Jay Bybee in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, evaluating the legality of specific interrogation

techniques. This memo was reportedly produced around the time of the August 1,

2002 memo, also signed by Mr. Bybee, which concerned the interpretation of laws

relating to torture and interrogation.

2. A March 14, 2003 memo prepared by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Yoo

entitled ‘‘Military Interrogation of Alien Unlawful Combatants Held Outside the

United States.’’ This memo was referred to in the report of Vice Admiral Church

on interrogation techniques and operations.

These two memos are highly relevant to the Intelligence Community in its practice of interrogation techniques, including the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Would you check to see if either of these two memos have been provided to the

Intelligence Community and report back on your findings by April 19?

If either, or both, of the memos has been provided to the Intelligence Community,

would you provide them to the Committee?

Answer. I understand that the Executive Branch has a strong confidentiality interest regarding Office of Legal Counsel opinions. I do not know the answers to your

specific questions, but if I am confirmed, I would look into the matter.

CIA IG REVIEW OF ABUSE ALLEGATIONS

Question 4. Ambassador Negroponte: The CIA Inspector General (IG) is looking

into allegations of detainee abuses by CIA personnel.

Do you know or could you find out and let us know whether, as part of its inspection of detainee abuse allegations, the CIA IG is also conducting a comprehensive

review of the policies and legal authorities governing CIA detention and interrogation activities to see whether these policies contributed to the alleged abuses of detainees in U.S. custody?

Answer. If confirmed I would be pleased to look into this matter.

CHURCH REPORT ON ‘‘GHOST DETAINEES’’

Question 5. Ambassador Negroponte: Vice Admiral Church, in his report on DoD

interrogation techniques, found evidence of approximately 30 ‘‘ghost detainees’’ held

unregistered at DoD facilities in Iraq at the request of the CIA. The Church Report

also states that the Defense Department has ceased the practice of holding ‘‘ghost

detainees’’ at DoD facilities.

Are you able to confirm that the United States ceased the practice of holding

‘‘ghost detainees’’ at U.S. facilities? Do you agree with the assessment that this

practice violates international law?

Answer. It would not have been appropriate for me to be fully briefed on this before confirmation, and so I have not had yet an opportunity to gather all the information that would be required to develop a view on the matter. If confirmed, I

would certainly be getting briefed on these issues and would look into this matter.

RENDITION POLICY

Question 6. Ambassador Negroponte: Numerous recent press reports describe the

CIA’s policy of ‘‘extraordinary rendition,’’ under which terrorist suspects are sent to

be interrogated in foreign countries, some with a known track record of using torture.

Recently, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and White House Counsel Dan Bartlett have reportedly defended this policy of extraordinary rendition. Yet they have

not articulated a legal basis for it, while admitting that the Administration ‘‘can’t

fully control’’ what other countries do—including countries that are known to engage

in torture. This policy directly contradicts President Bush’s statement on January

27th, 2005, that ‘‘torture is never acceptable, nor do we hand over people to countries that do torture.’’

Does the United States have a policy of extraordinary rendition which permits the

transfer of suspected terrorists to foreign countries, including ones with a track

record of human rights abuses, for interrogation? Do you support such a policy?

Do you know whether there has there been a legal determination that extraordinary rendition is legal under U.S. domestic law and our treaty obligations?

Answer. It would not have been appropriate for me to be fully briefed on this before confirmation, so I do not yet have all the information required to respond to

161

this question. As a condition to its advice and consent to the ratification of the Convention Against Torture, the Senate required an understanding pursuant to which

the United States may transfer persons to other countries unless it is more likely

than not that they will be tortured. My understanding is that the longstanding legal

position of the U.S. Government is, consistent with the Senate’s understanding, that

it is legal to send a person to another country unless we believe it is more likely

than not that he will be tortured.

DISAPPEARANCE OF FATHER JAMES CARNEY IN HONDURAS IN 1983

Question 7. Ambassador Negroponte: The disappearance and apparent death of

Father James Carney, an American citizen in Honduras, occurred while you were

Ambassador in Tegucigalpa. You met with family members at the time in search

of clues into Father Carney’s disappearance, and I know you were well aware of concerns the Carney family had that he had been targeted by Honduran death squads.

In your opinion, what happened to Father Carney, and did the United States do

all it could to locate him and determine his fate?

Answer. As you know, Father Carney was accompanying a group of guerrillas who

had infiltrated into Honduras from Nicaragua, with the purpose of overthrowing the

government. I believe Father Carney died because he was left behind in the jungle

by his companions after suffering a knee injury. I believe we did everything possible

to locate Father Canvey. In that connection I attach two letters dated 23 May 2001,

written by Sarah Horsey, who was Consul General in Honduras at the time of Father Carney’s disappearance. These letters explain the priority I attached to the

search for Father Carney. (see attachment 1)

PRESS REPORT ON CABLE FROM HONDURAS

Question 8. Ambassador Negroponte: The Washington Post of April 12, 2005 reported that, in relation to concerns about possible ‘‘death squad’’ activity in Honduras, you prepared a cable in October 1983 in which you spoke positively of General Gustavo Alvarez’s ‘‘dedication to democracy.’’

Is the report concerning the cable accurate? If so, do you stand by your characterization about Gen. Alvarez’s ‘‘dedication to democracy?’’

Answer. I do not recall the particular conversation reported in the October 1983

telegram, which is entitled, ‘‘General Alvarez on the Democratic Process.’’ The point

of my message, I believe, was to show that Alvarez was committed to the constitutional process unfolding at the time. I believe it was important to have Alvarez on

the record as being committed to constitutional rule. I believe, my characterization

of Alvarez ‘‘dedication to democracy’’ was overstated and with the benefit of hindsight, including Alvarez’ removal from his position by his own fellow officers in

March of 1984, would not have used that phrase if I had the opportunity to write

that message again. I do not believe, however, that Alvarez himself aspired to political office and, in that sense, he supported the constitutional process.

The full text of the cable is attached to give context to the quotation. (see attachment 2).

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SNOWE

DNI AUTHORITIES—SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

Lead-In: Mr. Ambassador, many, such as former CIA and FBI Director William

Webster, are concerned that the gaps and ambiguities left in the legislation may adversely impact your ability to do your job. Webster says that he had problems with

then-Secretary of Defense Cheney because of ‘‘blurred authority in the budget field.’’

(WP, 3/01/05).

Last August in an appearance in front of the House Armed Services Committee,

former Senator and 9/11 Commissioner Kerrey expressed his frustrations that while

it is always the intelligence community director that gets called up here to explain

failures, it is the Department of Defense that has the true budget and personnel

authorities that often precipitated such failures.

The Robb-Silberman Report cautioned that ‘‘headstrong agencies’’ will ‘‘try to run

around or over the DNI.’’

Two weeks ago, the Secretary of Defense signed a memo that some see as a roadblock to information flow between DoD and DNI. (WP, 4/18/05). Clearly, it places

an Under Secretary in the path of communication.

Question 1. How will you ensure that the office on the DNI is on an equal footing

with DoD and that when you set national intelligence strategy, that strategy is carried out without fail within the defense agencies?

162

Answer. If confirmed, I intend to fully utilize the authorities that have been provided with respect to overseeing and directing the implementation of the National

Intelligence Program. As I have mentioned, the Secretary and I have agreed to

maintain close coordination and cooperation on all such matters.

Question 2. How do you intend to track and ensure taskings to the intelligence

agencies from combatant commanders who can do so outside of the DM organization

are consistent with national intelligence strategies?

Answer. I recognize that it is the DNI’s responsibility to ensure that the NIP

budgets within DoD are adequate to satisfy the national intelligence needs of DoD.

If confirmed I intend to work cooperatively and constructively with all of the IC elements within the DoD to do so. I have not yet looked into the question of monitoring

taskings from combatant commanders but, if confirmed, I look forward to working

on this issue.

DNI AUTHORITIES—TURF BATTLES

Lead-in: In each report that has been issued over the past several years outlining

the intelligence failures of 9/11 and the Intelligence Community’s assessments of

Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs, one major theme that consistently

emerges is that chronic turf wars among government agencies impede our Nation’s

ability to effectively assess and counter its most dangerous adversaries.

The Committee’s report on Iraq’s WMD program is replete with information-sharing lapses that resulted in flawed analysis, and was a direct result of the turf wars

between agencies. More recently, the Robb-Silberman Report notes, with respect to

counter-terrorism, analysis and threat warning must be properly aligned, supported

and integrated to defeat the terrorist target. In sum, the President’s Commission

found that redundancies exist in the roles, missions, and authorities of counter-terrorism organizations, and that the ambiguous roles and authorities of the National

Counter-terrorism Center (NCTC) and the DCIs Counterterrorist Center (CTC) have

sparked turf battles and produced unnecessary duplication of effort and unproductive competition.

This finding is particularly troubling considering that when the President proposed the creation of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC) (now the National Counter-terrorism Center (NCTC)), in his State of the Union Address in 2003,

the goal was to end duplication and confusion among agencies’ counter-terrorist activities. Yet over 2 years later, the ambiguous roles, missions, and authorities of

counter-terrorism organizations have hindered effective threat warnings.

Question 3. As the WMD Commission notes, the persistence of agency coordination problems and unclear definitions of responsibility with regard to counter-terrorism activities, suggest a lack of Intelligence Community leadership. How will you

use your authorities to define clear roles, mission, and responsibilities among IC

agencies to stop the turf wars that result in duplication of effort, inefficient use of

limited resources and unproductive competition that hinder effective intelligence collection and analysis?

Answer. Eliminating overlap, duplication and inefficiency will be a key challenge

for the DNI. If confirmed, I intend to use the budgetary and personnel authorities

provided to the DNI under the IRTPA to effectively manage the IC and to removed

overlap and duplication of effort. I would have to study carefully the relevant organizational structures to determine how best to ensure a unified approach. The work

of this Committee and the WMD Commission provide useful guidance and, if confirmed, I look forward to working with this Committee in this critical area.

Question 4. The Robb-Silberman Report also addresses the difficulties the TTIC

or NCTC has had in getting personnel detailed to support its mission. This issue

brings to light the criticism that although the Intelligence Community reform legislation is a good start, the DNI lacks ‘‘command authority’’, or the ability to tell agencies what to do—or in this case, perhaps the ability to direct IC agencies to support

a priority IC mission. How will you use your authorities to direct personnel and resources to ensure that the Intelligence Community agencies are supporting the intelligence priorities of our Nation?

Answer. If confirmed, I intend to fully utilize, if necessary, all of the personnel

authorities given to the DNI, including the authority to detail up to 150 personnel

to the ODNI within the first year, and 100 personnel upon the establishment of any

new center. I intend to develop procedures to coordinate with the relevant heads of

departments and agencies to ensure that, to the extent practicable, such transfers

are effected smoothly and with minimal disruption to other activities underway in

the Community. While I believe the DNI has sufficient authorities in this area, if

experience shows that adjustments are necessary I would not hesitate to seek additional authority. As for ability to direct resources, Congress wisely vested in the

163

DNI reprogramming and transfer authorities that I would not hesitate to invoke

should it become necessary to dedicate resources to emerging intelligence priorities.

INSPECTOR GENERAL

Lead-in: Mr. Ambassador, all of the major post-9/11 reviews of the intelligence

community, including those carried out by this Committee and those emanating

from Commissions appointed by the President, have been replete with informationsharing failures, analytic failures, and collection failures that contributed to the

Community’s inability to forewarn this Nation’s policymakers about 9/11 and the

largely erroneous assessments regarding Iraq’s WMD programs.

To help ensure that such failures are not repeated and that there is more accountability injected into the intelligence community, I introduced the Intelligence Community Accountability Act last Fall to institute widespread accountability within the

intelligence community by creating an Inspector General for the entire Community.

This Community-wide IG would have had the ability to investigate current issues

in any of the Community’s 15 agencies, not just conduct ‘‘lessons learned’’ studies.

I believe an IG with such broad powers can help identify problem areas and identify

the most efficient and effective business practices required to ensure that critical deficiencies are addressed before it’s too late, before we have another intelligence failure, before lives are lost.

However, the Intelligence Reform bill passed last year merely authorizes the DNI

to create an Inspector General in the Office of the DNI, without the explicit, broader

powers that would enable that IG to conduct investigations throughout the intelligence community and inject the additional accountability that I believe is sorely

lacking. This concerns me.

I believe some of the agencies impacted feared the loss of control or powers to conduct such reviews themselves. However, I believe there is broad support for the establishment of an IG within the office of the DNI who could examine issues within

the DNI staff, the NCTC, and the National Proliferation Center (NPC) that, under

the current law, will lack an internal oversight mechanism although they will be

the center of our intelligence community information gathering and sharing efforts.

Additionally, there must be a mechanism to transcend barriers in the event that one

agency IG is conducting an investigation that extends into another agency, especially as operations are becoming more ‘‘joint’’ in nature.

Question 5. What are your thoughts about a DNI-level Inspector General—do you

intend to establish an IG that can investigate across agencies and not just within

the office of the DNI? Will you require additional legislative authority in order to

accomplish this?

Answer. I understand the importance of an Inspector General and, if confirmed,

I expect to establish an IG within the ODNI. However, I would address the specific

details upon taking office.

Question 6. The Robb-Silberman Report recommended that the DNI IG should

have responsibility for protecting intelligence collection sources and methods from

leaks and inadvertent disclosures as well as determining the releasability of intelligence information to foreign governments in diplomatic demarches. What are your

thoughts about those suggestions?

Answer. While I have not had an opportunity to consider that recommendation in

detail, I recognize my authorities and responsibilities for ensuring the protection of

sources and methods, and I intend to carefully consider the best way to implement

those authorities.

Question 7. In your experience, what is the best way to perform the constant ‘‘lessons learned’’ approach to improving the intelligence product provided to national

policy-makers? Are agency-based internal reviews unbiased enough or does this require periodic external reviews that a DNI-level IG might be better placed to conduct?

Answer. As I mentioned in my testimony, I believe that a ‘‘lessons learned’’ mechanism is invaluable to improving intelligence products. While the DNI IG may be

one avenue for such review, the statute provides for other such mechanisms within

the DNI, including the establishment of an alternative analysis ombudsman and an

entity to review the objectivity of finished intelligence. If confirmed, I would expect

to use a variety of mechanisms to ensure that the intelligence community learns

from its experience—institutionalizing and building on those things that work well

and correcting those things that do not.

ANALYSIS

Lead-in: Ambassador Negroponte, as you know this Committee found in its report

that the ‘‘group-think’’ dynamic was so strong that IC collectors, analysts and manVerDate 03-FEB-2003 14:52 Sep 23, 2005 Jkt 020732 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 D:\DOCS\22581.TXT SSC1 PsN: SSC1
164

agers did not use established mechanisms to challenge assumptions that led to the

conclusion that Hussein possessed vast stockpiles of WMD. Furthermore, we concluded that while 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—the infamous aluminum tubes being the most egregious example.

We also heard from Dr. David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group that a complete lack of competitive analysis led to stale data and findings being passed completely unchallenged to policy-makers. In response to a question I asked about competitive analysis, he agreed that the present system does not encourage diversity

of analysis or competitive analysis but that he thought a DNI would encourage it

because you would represent the whole. That is why I worked to get provisions for

‘‘red-teaming’’ (as a synonym for alternative analysis) put into the legislation and

I would like to explore with you your thoughts about the effectiveness and role of

alternative analysis.

Question 8. How, as DNI, will you ensure that the President gets the benefit of

all pertinent viewpoints from the entire community on major intelligence issues/debates?

Answer. As you mention, the legislation provides for an alternative analysis review of all intelligence products. I recognize that it is critically important that all

relevant viewpoints within the community are identified and explored at the appropriate level, and that they are presented to the President in an appropriate manner.

If confirmed, I intend to work hard to avoid phenomena such as group-think and

look forward to working with those in the intelligence community, the Congress, and

outside experts to insure that the intelligence community is at the forefront in using

creative means of ensuring the best possible competitive analysis.

Follow-up: Besides setting up a strictly bureaucratic reporting function, how will

you inculcate into the culture a desire to include all aspects of an argument regardless of agency viewpoints?

Answer. Your concern reflects my belief that an integrated and unified community

culture is imperative. I have worked in many different organizations and understand the importance of organizational culture and the challenges in changing it.

If confirmed, one of my first priorities would be to review the current mechanisms

in place with respect to how intelligence is currently provided and to consider what

changes would address the concerns that have been raised. Specifically with reference to organizational culture, I would expect to consult with those inside and outside government, as well as with the Congress, for ideas on how to inculcate an organizational culture that would produce the best and most robust possible intelligence.

Question 9. Beyond the requirement in the law to appoint a special officer to ensure intelligence analysis is objective and free from political interference, how will

you drive the establishment of alternative analysis cells into the differing agencies?

Answer. As provided for in the legislation, if confirmed, I would designate an entity to ensure objective analysis, and would empower that entity to manage this process for the ODNI and across the IC. I fully expect that all of the 15 IC elements

would address this issue with that entity. Reinforcing a culture that insists upon

the best possible, objective intelligence absolutely free from any political or other

agenda is a critical part of this effort.

Question 10. The Robb-Silberman Report recommended establishment of a National Intelligence University in part to improve the training of analysts—how could

an NIU change the culture of analysts so that each analyst understands and applies

the techniques of alternative analysis as a matter of course?

Answer. The IRTPA provides the DNI with broad authorities to require cross-disciplinary education and training. If confirmed, I intend to pursue a training curriculum that would provide all IC analysts with the necessary tools to appropriately

analyze the vast amounts of intelligence received on a daily basis. That kind of educational experience is one of the tools that can help build and reinforce the appropriate organizational culture in the intelligence community.

MISSION CENTERS

Lead-in: Mr. Ambassador, the Robb-Silberman Report recommended that the DNI

create a management structure centered around ‘‘mission managers’’ responsible for

designing and implementing a coordinated collection and analytical effort against

targets. This raises questions about the role of mission managers and also the utility of Intelligence Community Centers, such as the National Counterterrorism Center and the Nonproliferation Center which were established by the Intelligence

Community reform legislation.

165

Dr. Amy Zegart, author of Flawed by Design: The Evolution of the CIA and the

JCS and the NSC told this Committee last summer that ‘‘organizational culture is

the silent killer of innovation. Building new organizational arrangements with more

people and more power will not make us safer if intelligence officials still view the

world through old lenses and hoard information in old stove pipes.’’ (SSCI Hearing,

8/18/04) So I am concerned that while we work to align 15 already disparate

groups into a coherent whole that setting up additional organizations may exacerbate the problem if not approached correctly.

Question 11. In your experience, particularly in embassies overseas and in the

State Department, where work is distributed both into substantive ‘‘cones,’’ and in

cross-cutting geographic bureaus, do you believe reorganizing the IC around mission

areas is effective and efficient? By doing so, will we reduce or simply perpetuate the

stove pipes or other interagency barriers that exist in the Intelligence Community?

Answer. If confirmed, my priority would be to create a unified IC that is agile and

responsive to the intelligence needs of the United States. While I believe that the

center and mission manager concepts are useful, I believe the establishment of such

mechanisms must be carefully reviewed with respect to each particular intelligence

problem in order to determine whether it is an appropriate solution for that problem. I would carefully evaluate the best possible approach in each instance and look

forward to seeking the view of those in the intelligence community, outside experts

and the Congress.

Question 12. Will consolidating the collection and analytic efforts of the Intelligence Community within such task-specific centers or with mission managers prevent or exacerbate the type of ‘‘group-think’’ we saw in the assessments on Iraq’s

WMD programs?

Answer. You have identified a tension inherent in the efforts to restructure the

Intelligence Community. If confirmed, we must work to ensure that efforts to foster

complete, all-source analysis are not tainted by what the Committee has termed

group-think. I would review this issue closely, paying particular attention to the lessons learned in the establishment of the NCTC. However, even with the creation

of centers like the NCTC, IRTPA provides new tools to safeguard against groupthink—like alternative analysis mechanisms. Our goal must be to ensure that whatever structure is used contributes to the best possible result.

DNI AUTHORITIES—‘‘MISSION’’ AGENCIES

Lead-in: As you know, Mr. Ambassador, the Intelligence Reform Act established

the National Counterterrorism Center (or NCTC). The Director of the NCTC has

broad authority for analyzing and integrating all terrorism and counterterrorism intelligence and conducting strategic operational planning for counterterrorism activities. And while the Director of the NCTC is to report to you on budgetary and programmatic matters, the law requires him to report directly to the President on the

planning and progress of joint counterterrorism operations.

This country can never again accept organizational and bureaucratic maneuvering

that results in the President and national policy-makers receiving an intelligence

product that does not take into account inputs from every agency. But the law

names you as principal advisor to the President on intelligence matters so I am curious how you will act to de-conflict that and other conflicts in Presidential reporting

because clearly although agency chiefs will retain control of their operations, you

will be held accountable for their mistakes.

Question 13. What are your concerns about these dual reporting chains that have

been set up in the legislation?

Answer. The NCTC falls organizationally within the Office of the DNI. To that

end, I would expect that my close working relationship with both the President and

the Director of the NCTC would provide ample opportunity to ensure de-confliction

of issues of common concern, and coordination and cooperation in our mutual goal

of ensuring accurate and timely intelligence for the President. I believe that the current mechanisms are adequate, but should that prove not to be the case, if confirmed, I would not hesitate to ask for additional authorities. One of the early actions of my tenure would be to recommend to the President a candidate for nomination to be the Director of the NCTC, which is a position requiring Senate confirmation.

Question 14. Who will be responsible for preparing the Presidential Daily Brief?

Will it still be prepared by the CIA and you just present it?

Answer. The issue of the President’s Daily Brief is one that is very personal to

the President and must be tailored specifically to meet his needs. If confirmed, I

would work closely with the President to ensure that the preparation and presenVerDate 03-FEB-2003 14:52 Sep 23, 2005 Jkt 020732 PO 00000 Frm 00169 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 D:\DOCS\22581.TXT SSC1 PsN: SSC1
166

tation of the PDB is consistent with his needs and provides the best possible intelligence.

Follow-up: If your office takes responsibility for writing the PDB, do you risk

spending half of your time collating information and writing the PDB?

Answer. The DNI has many responsibilities under the IRTPA, one of which is the

PDB. If confirmed, I would carefully consider the amount of time required to carry

out each function of the position. I am acutely aware of the concerns regarding the

amount of staff time necessary to prepare the PDB and would take seriously those

concerns in determining the best possible use of my own personal time. I can assure

you that I would not let my activities on any one task be the cause of failing to

appropriately address others. I do not believe that the time I would personally devote to the PDB would encroach on my other important responsibilities. On the

other hand, working on the PDB and attending the daily briefings of the President

would be an important element of keeping the President well informed and assuring

the quality of our analytical product.

Question 15. How will you maintain control of the ‘‘mission’’ agencies and ensure

you fully understand both the source and context of the Intelligence provided to the

President?

Answer. As you know, both the IRTPA and the WMD Report contemplate the idea

of centralizing work on certain issues in order to ensure better consistency and control. If confirmed, I would actively consider those recommendations and, specifically,

the need for ‘‘centers’’ and ‘‘mission managers’’ in the most important intelligence

matters in order to ensure that I would always be current on all IC missions and

have a level of understanding that would allow me to provide the necessary information to the President.

Follow-up: What role do you see for the DNI in the drafting and presentation of

‘‘mission’’ agency briefs to the President?

Answer. With respect to the 15 IC elements, I would ensure that all presentations

to the President regarding national intelligence matters reflect the best possible intelligence and analysis, including and a full consideration of any limitations and divergent, viewpoints.

PERSONNEL

Lead-in: As we discussed last week, I believe that one of your primary tasks will

be to energize the IC workforce and give them direction. We both agree that our

intelligence community professionals are the best in the world and every day they

work tirelessly in the shadows to keep this country safe but I believe they are eagerly looking for strong leadership so they can move forward with the business of

securing the country.

We must develop a workforce that is adequately agile and flexible to counter the

myriad threats we face. The IC must recognize that the growing diversity of the

threat requires a commensurate growth in a diverse workforce. In February, DO

Goss, while submitting his plan to recruit the additional analysts and case officers

directed by the President, said his plan will focus on recruiting more officers and

analysts who ‘‘look, sound and talk like’’ the groups being spied on, so that they ‘‘can

have close access and learn plans and intentions.’’ (WP, 2/16/05)

It’s been said that a great leader takes people where they don’t necessarily want

to go, but ought to be. Your leadership as the first Director of National Intelligence

will be required 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.

Question 16. What role will the DNI play in the definition of the personnel and

training standards to ensure that we are getting the right people with the right

skills to match the IC priorities that understand they work for America and not just

an agency?

Answer. I believe that fostering a true sense of community within the IC is one

of the most important goals that the DNI must pursue. Personnel across the IC

must be more closely integrated, and we must seek to achieve a shared culture

through harmonized personnel, training and leadership practices. I also believe that

we must work hard to recruit a diverse workforce of the best possible personnel for

the intelligence community with the appropriate range of skills, experiences and

backgrounds.

The IRTPA has provided the DNI with broad personnel authorities and educational and training requirements. If confirmed, I would actively seek to foster that

sense of community by unifying standards across the community, encouraging crossdisciplinary education and training, and encouraging the engagement of all IC eleVerDate 03-FEB-2003 14:52 Sep 23, 2005 Jkt 020732 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 D:\DOCS\22581.TXT SSC1 PsN: SSC1
167

ments and personnel to come up with mutually supportive solutions. I believe this

is an area in which we could improve, and such improvement would dramatically

affect the productivity, dependability and cohesiveness of the IC.

Follow-up: How will the DNI ensure that CIA or any other agency training of

their recruits is consistent with current intelligence priorities and not just an indoctrination into the CIA bureaucracy of old?

Answer. If confirmed, I would need to further consider what specific mechanisms

would best unify and harmonize the education and training processes of IC elements. One of my preliminary thoughts is to identify a person who could oversee

the harmonization process and link the existing educational institutions.

Follow-up: How do you plan to use the large increase in personnel mandated by

the President with regard to the mix between analysis and information collection?

Answer. I have not had an opportunity to consider this issue in depth. However,

I understand the importance of ensuring that there be a thorough review of the

placement of personnel and that such placement reflects an appropriate mix in critical disciplines.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1: Two Letters from Sarah Horsey, U.S. Consul General—Honduras,

1981-1984:

—Letter to Editor of the Los Angeles Times

—Letter to Ombudsman of the Los Angles Times

Attachment 2: State Department Cable, Tegucigalpa 11124, 13 October 1983

—Text of State Department Cable

—Original declassified State Department Cable

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

Æ