[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 133 (Thursday, November 18, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11464-S11465]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         LEADERSHIP AT THE CIA

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about an old-
fashioned virtue: doing what you said you were going to do. That is a 
test a lot of people apply in politics. They say if you tell us what 
you are going to do when you get elected, are you going to do it?
  It seems to me in the intelligence field we have an example of that. 
The reaction is somewhat surprising. We have had, I think, 128 or 130 
hearings in the Intelligence Committee since I joined it in January 
2003. One of the lessons we learned is that, while there are many 
outstanding dedicated men and women in the CIA and throughout the 
intelligence community, the system is broken; it didn't give us the 
adequate or accurate prediction of the scope of the terrorist danger to 
the U.S. before 9/11. We went into Iraq with the Director of Central 
Intelligence so confident of the intelligence analysis

[[Page S11465]]

that we would find weapons of mass destruction that he advised the 
President it was a ``slam dunk.''
  We now find out that while there was great danger in Iraq, it was 
very different from the danger that the CIA had assessed. The estimates 
were really faulty. We have seen this. The CIA and the intelligence 
community, as I said, have outstanding, dedicated people; but they are 
not focused properly on doing the job that the new worldwide threat of 
an unrelenting, vicious, terrorist war directed at us and all free-
minded people presents. So everybody came to the conclusion there 
needed to be a new direction.
  The President nominated one of the Members of Congress who had done a 
great deal of oversight of the CIA and actually had served in the 
clandestine service himself, Porter Goss of Florida. Everybody said 
they wanted change. Porter Goss told the President and the Congress in 
his confirmation hearings that we are going to make some changes. He 
went over to the CIA. He is making some changes. What a surprise. The 
critics are now saying he is making changes at the CIA. I am a little 
bit confused about what they thought he was going to do. If he didn't 
make changes at the CIA, that is when I think we should be challenging 
him.

  Something has to change. I have spoken with Director Goss, and I know 
our chairman, Senator Roberts, has. We both have confidence in his 
ability, because it appears to us that Director Goss is doing exactly 
what he told Congress he would do, and that is to make changes in order 
to improve the CIA.
  Why are we surprised or critical that there is a change with new 
leadership? Obviously, changing means there are going to be some people 
who are going to be displaced. We thank them for their service and wish 
them well. But why are we arguing over the fact that some people are 
going to be removed or replaced?
  Director Goss testified at his confirmation hearing that he would 
make changes that emphasize the CIA's missions and capability and focus 
on delivering a better product to the President and Congress. That is 
because, as I said, we have had report after report, including the 
Senate's inquiry that we spent a lot of time putting together, that 
shows failures at many levels within the CIA, resulting in an 
inadequate product presented to us and the administration. The status 
quo is not acceptable.
  Director Goss has a very big challenge ahead of him. We need to give 
him room to address it. Change is tough, people don't like it, but it 
is necessary. Take two aspirins and call me in the morning. Sit back 
and take a deep breath and don't get upset because he is making 
changes.
  There are some critics who are going after him tooth and toenail. I 
believe the New York Times had a headline today that said ``New CIA 
Chief Tells Workers to Back Administration Policies.'' Wait a minute. 
That is not what he said. I have the copy of the statement Director 
Goss made. He said that we will support the administration, but he says 
we will provide intelligence to support it. We don't come out and argue 
for it. He said that as agency employees, we do not identify with, 
support, or champion opposition to the administration or its policies. 
We provide the intelligence as we see it and let the facts alone speak 
to the policymaker. In other words, their support is by providing the 
best intelligence estimates available.
  Now, Michael Scheuer, who wrote that anonymous book and made 
headlines with the ``Imperial Hubris'' book, criticized timid 
leadership at CIA. Why are we criticizing the DCI for shaking up the 
management? If the Director of CIA is making mistakes, or if he is 
going down the wrong path, we on the Intelligence Committees here and 
in the House are going to be monitoring the situation. If we see there 
is a problem, we are in a position to call him on it or to point out 
remedies that are needed. But, so far, I see a man willing to take on 
an entrenched and some might stay constipated bureaucracy.
  Many of the senior intelligence officials to quit have been with the 
agency for decades. It is a shame we are going to lose that experience, 
but some would say--and I agree--new blood is needed at the CIA.

  I am encouraged that Director Goss is willing to shake things up at 
the CIA. I hope he employs the same vigor in getting the rest of the 
intelligence community to work together and share information with each 
other.
  Some of the people who are leaving and whining, I question their 
mettle. There are thousands of soldiers and marines in Afghanistan and 
Iraq, including special forces, who are yelled at every day by their 
sergeants, not to mention being shot at and living in the mud. I am 
glad they all have the fortitude to say: I am not going to quit because 
I am yelled at or somebody doesn't like what I am doing.
  Perhaps these CIA officers should remember their mission and work 
with the DCI as the quiet service, keep their mouths shut, and work 
within the system to provide the best intelligence for the 
administration, for the Congress, and for the warfighters who need to 
rely on it and whose lives depend upon it.
  Parochialism is one of the CIA's biggest problems. These career CIA 
officers, while having valuable experience, also carry the baggage of 
being resistant to change. The status quo may be comfortable to them, 
but it is dangerous to the country.
  We on the Intelligence Committee have heard CIA officers say that 
everything is just fine, no changes are needed. Those people are 
clearly in a state of denial.
  We on the Intelligence Committee take our oversight responsibilities 
seriously and will, of course, address legitimate concerns over how 
Director Goss is running the intelligence community. We appointed and 
confirmed him to make difficult changes, and I don't think it is 
appropriate to jump to conclusions or second-guess his management 
style.
  I thank the Chair and my colleagues. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I believe I was to be recognized for 20 
minutes following the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). That is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. And two additional Senators as well.

                          ____________________