[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1148-1149]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           U.S. INTELLIGENCE

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, we have heard a number of speakers 
in the Senate this week. It has been an important week. We have had the 
testimony of David Kay, the United Nations inspector who just came back 
from Iraq. We had the reaction to his testimony. We had reports from 
the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. And today we are going to 
have a major speech by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, 
George Tenet.
  It is very important that we put in perspective what is happening and 
the steps that should be taken to ensure we are addressing the problems 
correctly.
  First, Mr. Kay, who is totally credible on the issue of weapons of 
mass destruction, made the following statements in his Armed Services 
Committee testimony.
  Senator McCain asked the question:

       [Y]ou agree with the fundamental principle here that what 
     we did was justified and enhanced the security of the United 
     States and the world by removing Saddam Hussein from power?

  Mr. Kay:

       Absolutely.

  Senator Kennedy:

       Many of us feel that the evidence so far leads only to one 
     conclusion: That what has happened was more than a failure of 
     intelligence, it was the result of manipulation of the 
     intelligence to justify a decision to go to war . . .

  Mr. Kay:

       All I can say is if you read the total body of intelligence 
     in the last 12 to 15 years that flowed on Iraq, I quite 
     frankly think it would be hard to come to a conclusion other 
     than

[[Page 1149]]

     Iraq was a gathering, serious threat to the world with regard 
     to weapons of mass destruction.

  He went on to say:

       I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and 
     removal of Saddam Hussein. I have said I actually think this 
     may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous 
     than we thought. I think when we have the complete record 
     you're going to discover that after 1998 it became a regime 
     that was totally corrupt. Individuals were out for their own 
     protection. And in a world where we know others are seeking 
     weapons of mass destruction, the likelihood at some point in 
     the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made 
     that a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated 
     with what may turn out not to be a fully accurate estimate.

  Senator McCain:

       Saddam Hussein developed and used weapons of mass 
     destruction; true?

  Mr. Kay:

       Absolutely.

  Senator McCain:

       He used them against the Iranians and the Kurds; just yes 
     or no.

  Mr. Kay:

       Oh, yes.

  Senator McCain:

       OK. And U.N. inspectors found enormous quantities of banned 
     chemical and biological weapons in Iraq in the '90s.

  Mr. Kay:

       Yes, sir.

  Senator McCain:

       We know that Saddam Hussein had once a very active nuclear 
     program.

  Mr. Kay:

       Yes.

  Senator McCain:

       And he realized and had ambitions to develop and use 
     weapons of mass destruction.

  Mr. Kay:

       Clearly.

  Senator McCain:

       So the point is, if he were in power today, there is no 
     doubt that he would harbor ambitions for the development and 
     use of weapons of mass destruction. Is there any doubt in 
     your mind?

  Mr. Kay:

       There's absolutely no doubt. And I think I've said that, 
     Senator.

  So I think, when we look at the testimony of the man who has been on 
the ground, who has searched for the weapons of mass destruction, who 
knows what all the clues are, who knows what the body of intelligence 
was--and he says it really could have been more dangerous than we even 
ever thought--I think we have to assess that in the context of all of 
the rhetoric we are hearing about second-guessing a decision that was 
based on what we had at the time.
  Senator Feinstein said we should relook at our intelligence-gathering 
organization. I do not think anyone would disagree with that, including 
the President of the United States.
  In our first effort to address the issues of the failure that led to 
9/11, we all tried to look at the intelligence failures, to look at the 
things that did not compute, to look at the communications systems that 
did not match up. We tried to put a grid in place in the agency that 
was created for homeland security that would allow all of the 
intelligence gathering that is done in and for our country to be put 
through a grid to warn us when there was an imminent danger.
  Let's talk about what the result has been because we have tried to 
address those failures. We have prevented potential terrorist acts. We 
know we prevented an airliner from being blown up because a very smart 
flight attendant saw a man get ready to strike a match and light his 
shoe. We know from that experience what to look for in an airline 
passenger, and we have refined the system. We have seen flights 
canceled because there was a suspicion there might be something going 
on. Who knows what was prevented in that instance?
  We have seen arrests in very remote parts of our country because of 
intelligence gathering. We have not had a terrorist attack on our 
country since the time we were attacked on 9/11. We have had attempts, 
but we, because we have processes in place from what we have learned, 
have thwarted those attempts, including one this week in the United 
States Senate.
  So, yes, we need to relook at our intelligence gathering. Yes, we are 
learning every day. And, yes, the President of the United States has 
already said he will have an independent investigation of our 
intelligence gathering that led to the invasion of Iraq. He has said he 
would do that. The President has also agreed to the extension asked for 
by the 9/11 Commission, the bipartisan commission that is looking into 
what happened before and during the 9/11 incident. He has said, yes, I 
will agree to an extension, because he was asked. The President of the 
United States is being open. The President of the United States is 
trying to do the right thing to get to the bottom of this because he 
has the interests of the United States at heart.
  Let's look at some other results. Let's look at the difference in the 
hope of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan today. Yes, there are 
continuing problems. Yes, it grieves every one of us. Our hearts stop 
when we hear there has been another bombing or mishap that has hurt one 
of our soldiers or killed one of our soldiers or an Iraqi citizen. Yes, 
it hurts.
  But do the people of Iraq today have a better chance to live in 
freedom and prosperity than they had the entire time they had been 
ruled by a despot? Absolutely. Do the people of Afghanistan today have 
the hope for a future of freedom more than they had under the Taliban 
and the other despots under whom they have been buried for all these 
years? Oh, yes. They have a constitution that is getting ready now to 
become implemented that actually says women will be equal in that 
country.
  We have come a long way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask the distinguished Senator from 
Oklahoma if he would like to extend the time or is he prepared to go to 
the highway bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, we are prepared to go back to the bill 
at this time.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you.
  Madam President, let me end by saying I hope we will come together 
and support the President in his initiatives to get to the bottom of 
this issue. The President is looking out for the United States of 
America, and we do not need partisan rhetoric on an issue such as this. 
We need to come together. That is what we must do.
  Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor, and I yield back the 
time that was allocated for morning business.

                          ____________________