EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

∑ This ‘‘bullet’’ symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor.

Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor.

May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 983

REFORMING U.S. INTELLIGENCE

HON. LEE H. HAMILTON OF INDIANA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, May 10, 1995

Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to

insert my Washington Report for Wednesday,

May 10, 1995 into the CONGRESSIONAL

RECORD.

REFORMING U.S. INTELLIGENCE

Many efforts are currently underway to reform and streamline the federal government.

Few parts are better candidates for reform

than the multi-billion dollar agencies that

make up the intelligence community. With

aggressive growth but no master plan for

several decades, the intelligence community

has become a bloated, poorly-managed bureaucracy whose mission has yet to be redefined for the post-Cold War world.

The Intelligence Community. Intelligence

is information on foreign events, intentions,

capabilities, and personalities that could affect our security. The Pentagon uses intelligence to design weapons, make deployment

decisions, and fight wars. The President and

other foreign policy officials use intelligence

to prepare for negotiations and predict foreign developments that could threaten U.S.

interests.

Thirteen civilian and military agencies—

not just the CIA—collect and analyze intelligence. Each of our four military services

has its own intelligence unit, and the Pentagon has another. U.S. intelligence agencies

employ tens of thousands of people and

produce dozens of different daily or weekly

reports.

Need for Reform. The U.S. needs an intelligence community that gives government

officials information that is accurate, relevant, timely, and cost efficient. To meet

that challenge in a world far different from

the one for which it was created, the intelligence community will require a new mission and substantial organizational change.

From the end of World War II until the

early 1990s, U.S. intelligence had one overriding objective: winning the Cold War. By

the end of the Cold War, roughly half of all

intelligence resources were focused on Soviet

bloc military forces. The world has changed

dramatically in the past few years, but the

mission of U.S. intelligence has been slow to

adjust.

Winning the Cold War was so important an

objective that almost any intelligence expenditure could be justified. Intelligence programs and spending grew steadily. The number of CIA employees nearly doubled during

the 1980s alone.

Our massive intelligence bureaucracy is

not well-coordinated. It is a ship without a

captain. Agencies often needlessly cover the

same topic, wasting money. Sometimes

agencies fail to collaborate effectively. That

generates intelligence that is lower in quality and less timely than our national security demands.

What Should Be Done? With the President’s backing, John Deutch, the incoming

director of the CIA, has promised dramatic

reforms in U.S. intelligence. The intelligence

community is also being carefully examined

by a bipartisan commission established by

law last year. Several key reforms are needed.

First, we need to redefine the mission of

U.S. intelligence—to decide what we want

our intelligence agencies to focus on, and in

what order of priority. Nearly everyone

agrees that intelligence on weapons proliferation, terrorism, and regional wars

should be the highest priority after the Cold

War. But some officials also want U.S. intelligence agencies to monitor economic, environmental, and other non-military developments. The lack of consensus has permitted

the number of intelligence targets to grow in

recent years. That complicates coordination

and risks spreading resources too thin.

Second, once we have figured out what our

intelligence community needs to focus on,

we must decide what combination of agencies and resources it needs to do the job. For

example, paramilitary covert action should

be assigned to the Department of Defense. To

ensure that we get all the intelligence we

need at a price we can afford, we should subject the intelligence community to a top-tobottom management review. We must eliminate redundant programs and improve coordination. In general, the intelligence community should be smaller and more focussed

on the central issues of national security.

Third, since effective management will require stronger leadership, we should create a

new post, the Director of National Intelligence, with authority over key appointments and the entire intelligence budget,

which the head of the CIA now lacks. The Director should be in charge of the intelligence

community. Our current management system is a recipe for inefficiency. No one person is in charge of the thirteen intelligence

agencies.

Fourth, we need to address the

politicization of intelligence. Policy officials

sometimes misuse intelligence to promote

favored policies, and intelligence officials

sometimes tell policy makers what they

think they want to hear. President Clinton’s

decision to make the new CIA director a

member of his cabinet threatens the necessary separation between intelligence and

policy, and should be reconsidered. The CIA

director should not be a policy maker, and

should scrupulously keep his assessments

free of policy considerations.

Fifth, we need to improve counter-espionage efforts. The case of Aldrich Ames, the

convicted CIA agent who spied for Russia

without detection for nine years, highlighted

stunning weaknesses in our counter-espionage system. Congress has approved legislation that makes it easier to monitor the personal lives and finances of intelligence employees, but additional steps may be necessary.

Finally, I have come to the view that fundamentally the culture of the CIA needs to

be changed. Within the intelligence community today is an attitude that they know better than the policymakers—including the

President and Congress—about what to do to

protect national security. Decisive steps

must be taken to ensure that intelligence officials are fully accountable to policymakers. The intelligence community must

rigorously respect the law, move toward

greater openness, and work closely and cooperatively with Congress.

Conclusion: The U.S. must engage the

post-Cold War world with a smaller, better,

more cost-efficient intelligence community.

The challenges that bedevil us today require

that our policymakers have the very best information upon which to make the decisions

necessary to preserve the national security

of the country.

TRIBUTE TO THE ALMA COLLEGE

MODEL UNITED NATIONS TEAM

f

HON. DAVE CAMP OF MICHIGAN

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, May 10, 1995

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize

the accomplishment of 18 young men and

women from Alma College, in the Fourth Congressional District of Michigan.

Every year, the United Nations in New York

City sponsors a ‘‘Model United Nations Championships’’ which is a simulation of committee

work the U.N. performs. In this competition,

students compete in areas such as building

and keeping peace, leadership skills, and

other issues such as the role of women in national government.

This year, 165 teams, consisting of 1,945

students from 40 States and 18 countries, participated in this 4-day competition. In the end,

it was the team from Alma that won it all.

These students worked up to 40 hours a

week in preparation for this competition. Their

hard work and sacrifice, as well as the efforts

of their advisor, Dr. Sandy Hume, resulted in

a world championship for Alma College

Their campus, their community, their State

and their country have reason to be proud.We

can be proud because they set a goal, worked

tirelessly to achieve that goal and joined together as a team to accomplish that goal. As

far as I’m concerned, they were winners before they ever got to New York.

Congratulations to Dr. Hume and the students of the 1995 Model United Nations World

Champions. And here’s to sweet repeat in

1996.

HONORING MR. GOULD

fHON. GARY L. ACKERMAN OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, May 10, 1995

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today

to join with the constituents of my district in

honoring Mr. Morton Gould, who recently received the 1994 Pulitzer Prize for Music Composition.

The work for which he was honored is

‘‘Stringmusic’’ which was commissioned by the

National Symphony Orchestra and first performed by the orchestra here in Washington in

March of last year.

The Pulitzer is just the latest honor conferred on Morton. This past December, he was

a Kennedy Center honoree for his lifetime

contributions to American culture through performing arts.