2/11/2003

George Tenet,

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Hearing

 

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_senate_hearings&docid=f:89797.wais

 

SEN. ROBERTS: The committee will come to order. Ladies and gentlemen and my colleagues, it's been a long-standing tradition for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to begin its annual oversight of the U.S. intelligence community by conducting a public hearing to present to our members, and to the American public, the intelligence community's assessment of the current and projected national security threats to the United States and our interests abroad.

 

Appearing before the committee today are the director of Central Intelligence, Mr. George Tenet; the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mr. Bob Mueller; the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Admiral Jake Jacoby; and the assistant secretary of State for intelligence and research, Mr. Carl Ford.

 

Now, while the United States faces a staggering array of new and growing threats around the world, unfortunately none of the traditional threats prominently discussed prior to September 11th have abated. We still face very significant long-term potential threats from emerging powers in Asia that continue to build increasingly powerful military forces with the potential to threaten their neighbors. International drug smuggling rings linked to the guerrilla armies and the proliferators of ballistic missiles and advanced conventional weapons and unscrupulous international arms merchants who are willing to sell almost anything to anyone are but a few of the continuing challenges that we face worldwide.

 

We must also confront the acute threats from what is less traditional and often referred to as "asymmetrical." As we are all painfully aware, our country faces a great and continuing threat from international terrorism, especially the group of mass murders of the al Qaeda network. As we will hear from our witnesses today, while our intelligence agencies and our military forces have won some very tremendous and important victories against al Qaeda during the last year and a half, there is much, much left to do.

 

As we have all recently heard, plans to attack us and our interests abroad are continuously in motion. We are on high alert. The threats that are related to the proliferation of nuclear and chemical and biological weapons, in particular in Iraq and North Korea, are not really new threats. Serious observers have seen these crises looming for years, and increasing in direct proportion to our unwillingness and that of our allies to confront them more forthrightly. But today these threats are especially severe, as Secretary of State Powell made very clear in his speech last week before the U.N. Security Council.

 

That is why today's hearing is so important, and why I am glad that my colleagues and our distinguished witnesses have been able to come here today for a frank discussion of these threats in front of the American people. Given the need to protect our intelligence sources and methods, there will be much that we cannot discuss in public. But there is still much that we can and we will. There will be a classified hearing as of this afternoon starting at 3:00.

 

This past year has not been an easy one for the U.S. intelligence community, whose job it is to provide our leaders what we call an adequate warning of the threats that face our country. And the community has come under criticism. A lot of brickbats from the Congress and others in regard to its, quote, "inability to provide specific warning prior to September 11th."

 

As I have emphasized repeatedly since the attack on the destroyer U.S.S. Cole in October of 2000, our intelligence agencies have too often failed to provide the timely, the cogent and the comprehensive analysis that our national security requires.

 

As chairman of this committee, I intend to conduct vigorous oversight of the intelligence community to ensure that it provides our leaders with the quality of intelligence they need to ensure the security of the American people whether at home or abroad. We intend to look at structural reform; we intend to assist the IC community with regard to shortfalls that now exist; and we intend to take a very hard look at the immediate and very serious threats that confront our nation today; and we intend to work closely with the independent commission that now is taking a look at the tragedy of 9/11.

 

But I also want to make clear that our intelligence agencies have for the most part -- for the most part -- reacted to the crises of September 11 in ways that should make all Americans proud. Whatever problems may have existed before, the community today is a very different place than it was before the attacks upon the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.

 

In my view the community today is taking important strides to identify, to disrupt and to dismantle terrorist cells at home and abroad. This is ongoing. Additionally, our individual agencies are reforming their internal processes in order to make it possible for continued success in the future. And they are doing this in ways that I would not have thought possible only two years ago.

 

Now, necessity they say is the mother of invention. And although their record of performance since September 11 has not been perfect -- and it's never perfect in the intelligence community -- it is a very significant and impressive one. Despite the critics -- and there are many -- we are a safer country.

 

I believe it is our job in Congress to continue to press for improvements in how our intelligence community operates, but to do so while bearing in mind the vital missions that these agencies must fulfill day in, day out, every day of the year, across the country and around the world. As the possibility of war with Iraq grows nearer, as petty dictators flaunt their nuclear weapons programs in East Asia, and as other threats continue and develop around the world, we need our intelligence services more today than ever before. With that in mind, it is our responsibility to give these agencies and their personnel our support, our encouragement, and most of all the resources to perform their demanding and at times dangerous missions. Their lives are on the line.

 

As the new chairman of this committee, I join my colleague, Vice Chairman Rockefeller, the distinguished senator from West Virginia, in beginning a series of visits to all of our major intelligence agencies. We are having what I call meaningful dialogue.

 

I have not visited every agency yet, but I will. There are 13. The vice chairman and I feel it is important to meet the people who are fighting this fight, who are collecting this information, who are analyzing it, and who are running the institutions that make all of this possible.

 

So far I have been, along with Senator Rockefeller and Senator DeWine, very impressed in these visits by the quality and comprehensiveness of the work that our intelligence services are doing. If it were possible to describe all of this work in public, the man or woman on the street, whether in Dodge City, Kansas, my hometown, or Charleston, West Virginia, or in Washington, D.C. would be thoroughly impressed. But the men and women who do this work must labor in secret, and it is only rarely, as in Secretary Powell's speech last week, that the world gets a chance to see the products of their labors with anything approaching the detailed appreciation that they deserve. Secretary Powell revealed just the tip of our intelligence iceberg.

 

I know of two individuals here today to whom I would like to extend appreciation for their intelligence work. They are on the professional staff of this committee. Mr. Tom Corcoran -- and Tom, would you stand -- is an intelligence officer in the Naval Reserve. He was mobilized soon after September 11th, spent the next year doing very sensitive and viable work for his country. Now he is back on the staff and sharing his knowledge with his colleagues and the members of this committee. Thank you for your service, Tom. I would also like to thank another professional staff member, Mr. Matt Pollard -- Matt, would you please stand? Matt is an intelligence officer in the army reserve who like many others has just received his mobilization orders. He departs next week for duty at a classified location. Matt, I think it's a safe bet you're not going to go to Fort Riley, Kansas. I wish you were. Matt, you keep your head down, come back to us sooner than later. Your expertise will be missed. And good luck.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, our hearing today will enable the public to learn more about the products which the personnel in our intelligence community, like Matt Pollard and Tom Corcoran, are producing. We will hear from the heads of our intelligence agencies about what their analysis has identified as being the most important threats our country faces. I hope that their testimony will also provide the public with some perspective upon on their intelligence agencies are adapting to our new challenges and threats.

 

I look forward to the testimony of our distinguished witnesses. I welcome you all to our first open hearing of the 108th Congress. I now turn to the committee's very distinguished vice chairman, Senator Rockefeller, for any remarks that he would like to make.

 

SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-WV): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I congratulate you and welcome all new members of the committee, our witnesses, the press and the public, because this is not an ordinary occurrence but an extremely important one.

 

In the '90s America seemed to be in an unprecedented period of success, and the stock market soared, and the possibility of democracy spreading around the world seemed to be almost unstoppable. The Intelligence Committee's annual threat hearings during that period were I suspect not listened to closely enough, and did not get the attention they deserved. That obviously will not be the case today.

 

In recent weeks we have seen the country move closer to war with Iraq, North Korea taking steps toward resuming the production of nuclear weapons, increased threats by al Qaeda in dimensions that we can only imagine, and meanwhile poverty and desperation, a subject which I want to discuss a little bit this morning, continue to spread inmost parts of the world. Polling data shows increased hostility to the U.S. in many regions, especially in the Middle East. Europe seems to be splitting. NATO is in at least some form of public relations disaster if not more deeper than that.

 

So the American people obviously have to look to you. You are not policymakers in the classic sense, but you create policy by the excellence of your intelligence and the work that you do -- I am talking about our witnesses.

 

Given the many threats that we are faced with from North Korea to al Qaeda, to Iranian support for terrorism -- and the list goes on endlessly -- we clearly need to understand why Iraq has risen to prominence to the point where we are contemplating an invasion and a longer presence there to help rehabilitate the country. With that in mind, there are four questions that I would pose, and you can answer if you choose: What is the purpose of Iraq's WMD programs? -- that would be the first one. Are they intended first and foremost to try to secure the regime's survival and deter attacks from the United States and from other countries? Or does the evidence suggest that Saddam intends to become a supplier of weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations, even if he has not been in the past? And, on that subject, he has not in the past generally been a supplier. So what reason to we have to believe that the past is not prologue, and that his habits may change? What evidence is there to the extent that you can talk about that?

 

Secondly, many observers of the Middle East, including many friends and allies, believe that the administration's fears regarding terrorism, WMD, weapons of mass destruction and Iraq will become a self-fulfilling prophecy if the United States invades Iraq. Clearly once an invasion begins Saddam will have nothing to lose. Moreover, many of our allies fear that an invasion of Iraq, especially one which proceeds without explicit U.N. authorization, if that's the way it turns out, will further radicalize and inflame the Muslim community, swelling the ranks, and therefore the recruiting grounds, for terrorist groups for years and years to come. In that context, some analysts suspect that Osama bin Laden is eagerly anticipating a U.S. cooperation invasion of Iraq. In short, do you believe a U.S. cooperation invasion of Iraq will in fact increase, in spite of testimony which has already been given, the terrorist threat to the United States and the nuances of that?

 

Third, as you know, a serious proposal has recently been advanced that appears to offer an alternative -- alternative passive inspections, outright inspections, sort of a little bit more militarized and intense inspections by some of our NATO allies. And that involves U.N. authorization for a much expanded inspection to compel Iraq to comply with U.N. Resolution 1441. What is your assessment of this compromise, if you feel you are in a position to give that? Could an expanded force succeed in disarming or causing regime change prior to a war? I'm skeptical myself, but that doesn't matter. I'm interested in what you think -- you're the professionals. If you have not performed an assessment of this, then I think the committee would be interested in hearing nevertheless what your thoughts would be in written form.

 

Finally, we need your best assessment of the cost and duration and risks associated with American presence in Iraq, should there be a war, after the war. It -- I think we will agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense to invade Iraq and then walk away from it, if we are not willing to undertake the costly and painstaking work required to help rebuild the country and put it on a path to a better future. Seven years and billions of dollars later, we still have troops in Bosnia. Our commitment continues to exist, and even expanded in Kosovo. Our financial commitment to Afghanistan is expanding, and there is no end in sight to our military presence. In sum, we hope that you can help us to understand the likely cost and duration, and any other consequences of the commitment we would need to take in Iraq should we invade Iraq.

 

I thank you for appearing. I thank you for your service. And to you, Mr. Tenet, you have my profound -- all of our American people's profound sympathies for the duties that you and John McCoughlin (ph) will do this afternoon in attending the funeral service of one of your members. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

SEN. ROBERTS: I thank the distinguished senator from West Virginia and the vice chairman. We will now go to the witnesses in the following order: the DCI George Tenet; the director of the FBI Robert Mueller; Admiral Jacoby, who is the head of the DIA and Assistant Secretary Ford. Gentlemen, I feel compelled to say that most senators can read. All staff can read. Staff can then read to senators and they for the most part can understand. Please feel free to read each and every word of your statement. Let me emphasize that each and every word will be made part of the record. If you so choose to summarize in your own words so eloquently as you have done in the past, to make your statement somewhat shorter, that would be allowed. (Laughter.) Please proceed, George.

 

MR. TENET: Undaunted. I'll read a little bit, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, last year in the wake of the September 11th attack on our country, I focused my remarks on the clear and present danger posed by terrorists who seek to destroy who we are and what we stand for. The national security environment that exists today is significantly more complex than a year ago. I can tell you that the threat from al Qaeda remains, even though we have made important strides in the war on terrorism. Secretary of State Powell clearly outlined last week the continuing threats posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, its efforts to deceive U.N. inspectors, and the safe haven that Baghdad has allowed for terrorists in Iraq.

 

North Korea's recent admission that it has a highly-enriched uranium program, intends to end the freeze on its plutonium production facilities, and has stated its intention to withdraw from the Nonproliferation Treaty raises serious new challenges for the region and the world. At the same time we cannot lose sight of those national security challenges that, while not occupying space on the front pages, demand a constant level of scrutiny. Challenges such as the world's vast stretches of ungoverned areas, lawless zones, veritable no man's lands, like some areas along the Afghan-Pakistani border, where extremist movements find shelter and can win the breathing space to grow. Challenges such as the numbers of societies and peoples excluded from the benefits of an expanding global economy, where the daily lot is hunger, disease, and displacement, produce large populations of disaffected youth who are prime recruits for our extremist foes.

 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, the United States last week raised the terrorist threat level. We did so because of the threat reporting from multiple sources with strong al Qaeda ties. The information we have points to plots aimed at targets on two fronts -- in the United States and on the Arabian Peninsula. It points to plots timed to occur as early as the end of the Hajj, which occurs late this week. And it points to plots that could include the use of a radiological dispersal device as well as poisons and chemicals. The intelligence is not idle chatter on the part of terrorists or their associates. It is the most specific we have seen, and it is consistent with both our knowledge of al Qaeda's doctrine and our knowledge of plots this network, and particularly its senior leadership has been working on for years.

 

The intelligence community is working directly and in real time with friendly services overseas and with our law enforcement colleagues here at home to disrupt and capture specific individuals who may be part of this plot. Our information and knowledge is the result of important strides we have made since September 11th to enhance our counterterrorism capabilities and to share with our law enforcement colleagues -- and they with us -- the results of disciplined operations, collection, and analysis of events inside the United States and overseas.

 

Raising the threat level is important to our being as disruptive as we possibly can be. The enhanced security that results from a higher level of threat can buy us more time to operate against the individuals who are plotting to do us harm. And heightened vigilance generates additional information and leads. This latest reporting underscores the threat that the al Qaeda network continues to pose to the United States. The network is extensive and adaptable. It will take years of determined effort to unravel this and other terrorist networks and stamp them out.

 

Mr. Chairman, the intelligence and law enforcement communities aggressively continue to prosecute the war on terrorism, and we are having success on many fronts. More than one third of the top al Qaeda leadership identified before the war has either been killed or captured, including the operations chief for the Persian Gulf area who planned the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole; a key planner who was a Mohammad Atta's confidant and a conspirator in the 9/11 attacks; a major al Qaeda leader in Yemen, and key operatives and facilitators in the Gulf area and other regions, including South Asia and Southeast Asia.

 

The number of rounded-up al Qaeda detainees has now grown to over 3,000, up from 1,000 or so when I testified last year. And the number of countries involved in these captures has almost doubled to more than one hundred. Not everyone arrested was a terrorist. Some have been released. But the worldwide rousting of al Qaeda has definitely disrupted its operations, and we've obtained a trove of information we're using to prosecute the hunt still further.

 

The coalition against international terrorism is stronger, and we are reaping the benefits of unprecedented international cooperation. In particular, Muslim governments today better understand the threat al Qaeda poses to them and day by day have been increasing their support. Ever since Pakistan's decision to sever ties with the Taliban, so critical to the success of Operation Enduring Freedom, Islamabad's close cooperation in the war on terrorism has resulted in the capture of key al Qaeda lieutenants and significant disruption of its regional network.

 

Jordan and Egypt have been courageous leaders in the war on terrorism. I can't say enough about what Jordan has done for this country in taking on this scourge.

 

A number of Gulf states, like the United Arab Emirates, are denying terrorists financial safe haven, making it harder for al Qaeda to funnel funding for operations. Others in the Gulf are beginning to tackle the problem of charities that front for or fund terrorism. The Saudis are providing increasingly important support to our counterterrorism efforts -- from arrests to sharing debriefing results. Southeast Asian countries like Malaysia and Indonesia, with majority Muslim populations, have been active in arresting and detaining terrorist suspects. And we mustn't forget Afghanistan, where the support of the new leadership is absolutely essential. Al Qaeda's loss of Afghanistan, the death and capture of key personnel, and its year spent mostly on the run have impaired its ability, complicated its command and control, and disrupted its logistics.

 

That said, Mr. Chairman, the continuing threat remains clear. Al Qaeda is still dedicated to striking the U.S. homeland, and much of the information we've received in the past year revolves around that goal. Even without an attack on the U.S. homeland, more than 600 people around the world were killed in acts of terror last year, and 200 in al Qaeda related attacks -- 19 were U.S. citizens. Al Qaeda or associated groups carried out a successful attack in Tunisia and since October 2002 attacks in Mombasa, Bali, Kuwait, and off Yemen against the French oil tanker Limburg. Most of these attacks bore such al Qaeda trademarks as entrenched surveillance, simultaneous strikes, and suicide-delivered bombs.

 

Combined U.S. and allied efforts have thwarted a number of related attacks in the past year, including the European poison plots. We identified, monitored, and arrested Jose Padilla, an al Qaeda operative who was allegedly planning operations in the United States, and was seeking to develop a so-called dirty bomb. And along with Moroccan partners we disrupted al Qaeda attacks against U.S. and British warships in the Straits of Gibraltar.

 

Until al Qaeda finds an opportunity for the big attack, it will try to maintain its operational tempo by striking softer targets. And what I mean by "softer," Mr. Chairman, are simply those targets al Qaeda planners may view as less well protected. Al Qaeda has also sharpened its focus on our allies in Europe and on operations against Israeli and Jewish targets. Al Qaeda will try to adapt to changing circumstances as it regroups. It will secure base areas so that it can pause from flight and resume planning. We place no limitations on our expectations on what al Qaeda might do to survive.

 

We see disturbing signs that al Qaeda has established a presence in both Iran and Iraq. In addition, we are also concerned that al Qaeda continues to find refuge in the hinterlands of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is also developing or refining new means of attack, including use of surface-to-air missiles, poisons, and air and surface and underwater methods to attack maritime targets. If given the choice, al Qaeda terrorists will choose attacks that achieve multiple objective, striking prominent landmarks, inflicting mass casualties, causing economic disruption, and rallying support through shows of strength. The bottom line here, Mr. Chairman, is that al Qaeda is living in the expectation of resuming the offensive.

 

We know from the events of September 11 h that we can never again ignore a specific type of country -- a country unable to control its own borders and internal territory, lacking the capacity to govern, educate its people, or provide fundamental societal services. Such countries can, however, offer extremists a place to congregate in relative safety. Al Qaeda is already a presence in many parts of the world, Mr. Chairman, and I'll stop my discussion on terrorism there, where I go on to a very careful discussion of our concerns about their acquisition of chemical and biological weapons and what the history shows.

 

I want to move to Iraq, sir, and then China and Iran and I'll get out. There's a lot in my statement, and you can read it. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to comment on Iraq, and I will come back and answer Senator Rockefeller's questions as best I can. Last week Secretary Powell carefully reviewed for the U.N. Security Council the intelligence we have on Iraqi efforts to deceive U.N. inspectors, its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction, and its support for terrorism. I do not plan to go into these matters in detail, but I will summarize some of the key points.

 

Iraq has in place an active effort to deceive U.N. inspectors and deny them access. The effort is directed at the highest levels of the Iraqi regime. Baghdad has given clear directions to its operational forces to hide banned materials in their possession. Iraq's BW program includes mobile research and production facilities that will be difficult, if not impossible, for the inspectors to find. Baghdad began this program in the mid '90s, during a time when U.N. inspectors were in the country.

 

Iraq has established a pattern of clandestine procurement designed to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program. These procurements include but go well beyond the aluminum tubes that you have heard so much about. Iraq has recently flight-tested missiles that violate the U.S. range limit of 150 kilometers. They have tested unmanned aerial vehicles to ranges that far exceed both what it declared to the United Nations and what it is permitted under U.N. resolutions.

 

Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of al Qaeda. We know Zarqawi's network was behind the poison plots in Europe, and we discussed earlier as well -- Secretary Powell the assassination of a U.S. State Department employee in Jordan.

 

Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates. One of these associates characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful.

 

Mr. Chairman, this information is based on a solid foundation of intelligence. It comes to us from credible and reliable sources. Much of it is corroborated by multiple sources. And it is consistent with the pattern of denial and deception exhibited by Saddam Hussein over the past 12 years.

 

Mr. Chairman, on proliferation, it's important to talk about this for a few moments. We have entered a new world of proliferation. In the vanguard of this new world, we are knowledgeable about non-state purveyors of WMD materials and technology. Such non-state outlets are increasingly capable of providing technology and equipment that previously could only be supplied by countries with established capabilities. This is taking place side by side with the continued weakening of the international non-proliferation consensus. Control regimes, like the NPT Treaty, are being battered by developments such as North Korea's withdrawal from the NPT and its open repudiation of other agreements.

 

The example of new nuclear states that seem able to deter threats from more powerful states simply by brandishing nuclear weaponry will resonate deeply among other countries that want to enter the nuclear weapons club. Demand creates the market. The desire for nuclear weapons is on the upsurge. Additional countries may decide to seek nuclear weapons as it become clear their neighbors and regional rivals are already doing so. The domino theory of the 21st century may well be nuclear. With the assistance of proliferators, a potentially wider range of countries may be able to develop nuclear weapons by leap- frogging the incremental pace of weapons programs in other countries.

 

Mr. Chairman, my statement on proliferation is far more extensive, talking about developments of chemical and biological weapons, threats from ballistic missiles, land attack cruise missiles, and UAVs. I will want to talk briefly about North Korea.

 

The recent behavior of North Korea, regarding its long-standing nuclear weapons program, makes apparent all the dangers Pyongyang poses to its region and the world. This includes developing a capability to enrich uranium, ending the freeze on its plutonium production facilities, and withdrawing from the non-proliferation treaty. If as seems likely Pyongyang moves on to reprocess spent fuel from facilities where it recently abrogated the 1994 IAEA monitored freeze, we assess it could recover sufficient plutonium for several additional weapons. North Korea also continues to export complete ballistic missiles and production capabilities, along with related raw materials, components and expertise.

 

Kim Jong Il's attempts this past year to parlay the North's nuclear weapons program into political leverage suggests that he is trying to negotiate a fundamentally different relationship with Washington, one that implicitly tolerates North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Although Kim calculates that the North aid, trade and investment climate will never improve in the face of U.S. sanctions and perceived hostility, it is equally committed to retaining and enlarging his nuclear weapons stockpiles.

 

Mr. Chairman, I go through an interesting discussion of China, Russia and Iran. Perhaps we can come back to those during the question and answer question -- period. I would note the one area of the world that continues to worry us, as we worry about all these other problems, is South Asia, where we've averted a conflict but soon could return to one, and it's something that we may want to talk about but continues to bear careful scrutiny.

 

The statement goes through a number of transnational threats, Mr. Chairman, and I want to talk about something untraditional. You know we recently published an NIE -- open NIE on AIDS. I want to talk about HIV/AIDS because it has national security implications beyond health implications.

 

This pandemic continues unabated, and last year more than three million people died of AIDS-related causes. More than 40 million people are infected now, and Southern Africa has the greatest concentration of these cases. That said, the intelligence community recently projected that by 2010 we may see as many as 100 million HIV infected people outside of Africa. China will have about 15 million cases. In India, 20 to 25 million cases. And cases are on the rise in Russia as well.

 

The national security dimension of the virus is plain. It can undermine economic growth, exacerbate social tensions, diminish military preparedness, create huge social welfare costs, and further weaken beleaguered states. And the virus respects no border.

 

We rarely talk about Africa, Mr. Chairman, but it's important. Sub-Saharan Africa's chronic instability will demand U.S. attention. Africa's lack of democratic institutionalization, combined with its pervasive ethnic rifts and deep corruption, render most of the 48 countries vulnerable to crises that can be costly in human lives and economic growth. The Cote D'Ivoire is collapsing, and it's crash will be felt throughout the region, where neighboring economies are at risk from the falloff in trade and from refugees fleeing violence.

 

Mr. Chairman, I'll end my statement there. There's a discussion about Venezuela and Colombia we may want to pursue in the questions and answers. And I thank you for your patience, and I've set a new standard for not reading my whole statement.

 

SEN. ROBERTS: It's an excellent standard and a marvelous precedent. Director Mueller.

 

MR. MUELLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

As we enter the second year of the global war on terrorism, the United States and its allies have inflicted a series of significant defeats on al Qaeda and its terrorist networks, both here at home and abroad. The terrorist enemy, however, is far from defeated. Although our country's ultimate victory is not in doubt, we face a long war whose end is difficult to foresee.

 

Accordingly, the prevention of another terrorist attack remains the FBI's top priority. Now, the bureau's efforts to identify and dismantle terrorist networks have yielded successes over the past 17 months, and we have charged 197 suspected terrorists with crimes, 99 of whom have been convicted to date. We have also facilitate the deportation of numerous individuals with suspected links to terrorist groups. Moreover, our efforts have damaged terrorist networks and disrupted terrorist related activities across the country -- in Portland, in Buffalo, in Seattle, in Detroit, in Chicago, and in Florida, to name but a few. Furthermore, we have successfully disrupted the sources of terrorist financing, including freezing $113 million from 62 organizations, and conducting 70 investigations, 23 of which have resulted in convictions.

 

But despite these successes, the nature of the terrorist threat facing our country today is exceptionally complex. International terrorists and their state sponsors have emerged as the primary threat to our security, after decades in which the activities of domestic terrorist groups were in more imminent threat.

 

And al Qaeda -- the al Qaeda terrorist network is clearly the most urgent threat to U.S. interests. The evidence linking al Qaeda to the attacks of September 11th is clear and irrefutable. And our investigation of the events leading up to 9/11 has given rise to important insights, into terrorist tactics and trade craft -- trade craft which will prove invaluable was we work to prevent the next attack.

 

There is no question, though, that al Qaeda and other terrorist networks have proven adept at defending their organization from U.S. and international law enforcement efforts. As these terrorist organizations evolve and change their tactics, we too must be prepared to evolve. Accordingly, the FBI is undergoing substantial changes, including the incorporation of an enhanced intelligence function that will allow us to meet these terrorist threats. I'd like to briefly outline these changes, but first, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address the most significant threats facing this country today.

 

And we start with the al Qaeda threat. The al Qaeda network will remain for the foreseeable future the most immediate and serious threat facing this country. al Qaeda is the most lethal of the groups associated with the Sunni jihadist cause, but it does not operate in a vacuum. Many of the groups committed to international jihad offer al Qaeda varying degrees of support. FBI investigations have revealed Islamic militants in the United States, and we strongly suspect that several hundred of these extremists are linked to al Qaeda. The focus of their activity centers primarily on fundraising, recruitment and training. Their support structure, however, is sufficiently well developed that one or more groups could be mobilized by al Qaeda to carry out operations in the United States homeland.

 

Despite the progress the United States has made in disrupting the al Qaeda network overseas and within our own country, the organization maintains the ability and the intent to inflict significant casualties in the United States with little warning. Our greatest threat is from al Qaeda cells in the United States that we have not yet been able to identify. Finding and rooting out al Qaeda members once they have entered the United States and have had time to establish themselves is our most serious intelligence and law enforcement challenge.

 

But in addition, the threat from single individuals sympathetic or affiliated with al Qaeda, acting without external support or surrounding conspiracies, is increasing. al Qaeda's successful attacks on September 11th suggest the organization could employ similar operational strategies in carrying out any future attack in the United States, including those cell members who avoid drawing attention to themselves and minimize contact with militant Islamic groups in the United States. They also maintain, as we have found in the past, strict operational and communications security.

 

We must not assume, however, that al Qaeda will rely only tried and true methods of attack. As attractive as a large scale attack that produces mass casualties would be for al Qaeda, and as important as such an attack is to its credibility amongst its supporters and its sympathizers, target vulnerability and the likelihood of success are increasingly important to the weakened organization. Indeed, the types of recent smaller scale operations al Qaeda has directed, and -- (inaudible) -- against a wide array of Western targets outside the United States could readily reproduced within the United States.

 

I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, my greatest concern is that our enemies are trying to acquire dangerous new capabilities with which to harm Americans. Terrorists worldwide have ready access to information on chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons via the Internet. Acquisition of such weapons would be a huge morale boost for those seeking our destruction, while engendering widespread fear among Americans and amongst our allies.

 

However, the most serious terrorist threat is from non-state actors who remain vigilant against the potential threat posed by state sponsors of terrorism. Seven countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism -- Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, and North Korea -- remain active in the United States and continue to support terrorist groups that have targeted Americans.

 

As Director Tenet has pointed out, Secretary Powell presented evidence last week that Baghdad has failed to disarm its weapons of mass destruction, and willfully attempting to evade and deceive the international community. Our particular concern is that Saddam Hussein may supply terrorists with biological, chemical, or radiological material.

 

Let me turn, if I could, Mr. Chairman, to some of the changes that we've brought about within the bureau in the last -- in the last year.

 

For nearly a century, the FBI has earned a well-deserved reputation as one of the world's premier law enforcement agencies, and for decades the FBI has remained flexible in addressing the threats facing the nation at any given time -- whether it be gangsters, civil rights violations, racketeering, organized crime, espionage, and, of course, terrorism. Since September 11th, 2001, the men and women of the FBI have recognized the need for change and have embraced it. I assure this committee and the American people that just as the FBI earned its reputation as a world class law enforcement agency, so is it committed to becoming a world class intelligence agency. As evidence of that commitment, Mr. Chairman, I would like to spend a moment outlining -- outlining some of the specific steps we have taken to address the terrorist threats facing the United States today.

 

To effectively wage this war against terror, we have augmented our counter-terrorism resources and are making organizational enhancements to focus our priorities. On top of the resource commitment to counter-terrorism we made between 1993 and 2001, we have received additional resources from Congress. We have as well shifted internal resources to increase our total staffing levels for counter- terrorism by 36 percent. Much of this increase has gone towards enhancing our analytical cadre.

 

We have implemented a number of initiatives, including creating the College of Analytical Studies which, in conjunction with the CIA is training new intelligence analysts. We also have created a corps of reports officers. These officers will be responsible for identifying, extracting and collecting intelligence from FBI investigations and sharing that information throughout the FBI and to other law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

 

I have taken a number of other actions which we believe will make the FBI a more flexible, a more responsive agency in our war against terrorism. To improve our systems for threat warnings, we have established a number of specialized counter-terrorism units. These include a threat monitoring unit, which among other things works hand in hand with its CIA counterpart to produce a daily threat matrix. The 24-hour counter-terrorism watch to serve as the FBI's focal point for all incoming terrorist threats. Two separate units to analyze terrorist communications and special technologies and applications. Another section devoted entirely to terrorist financing operations. A unit to manage document exploitation -- whether the documents come from Afghanistan or Pakistan or elsewhere around the world, and other such units. And to protect U.S. citizens abroad, we have expanded our legal attache and liaison presence around the world to 46 offices.

 

To strengthen our cooperation with state and local law enforcement, we are introducing counter-terrorism training on a national level. We will provide specialized counter-terrorism training to 224 agents and training technicians from every field division in the country so that they in turn can train an estimated 26,800 federal, state and local law enforcement officers this year in basic counter-terrorism techniques.

 

To further enhance our relationship with state and local agencies, we have expanded the number of joint terrorism task forces from a pre-9/11 number of 35 to 66 today. The joint terrorism task forces partner FBI personnel with hundreds of investigators from various federal, state and local agencies in field offices across the country and are important force multipliers aiding our fight against terrorism within the United States.

 

The counter-terrorism measures I have just described essentially complete the first phase of our intelligence programs. We are now beginning the second phase that will focus on expanding and enhancing our ability to collect, analyze and disseminate intelligence. The centerpiece of this effort is the establishment of an executive assistant director for intelligence, who will have direct authority and responsibility for the FBI's national intelligence program.

 

Specifically, the executive assistant director for intelligence will be responsible for ensuring that the FBI has the optimum strategies, structure, and policies in place, first and foremost for our counter-terrorism mission. That person will also oversee the intelligence programs for our counter-intelligence, criminal and our cyber divisions. Lastly, in the field, intelligence units will be established in every office and will function under the authority of the executive assistant director for intelligence.

 

If we are to defeat terrorists and their supporters, a wide range of organizations must work together. I am committed to the closest possible cooperation with the intelligence community and with other government agencies, as well as with state and local agencies -- and I should not leave out our counterparts overseas. I strongly support the president's initiative to establish a terrorist threat integration center that will merge and analyze terrorist-related information collected domestically and abroad.

 

Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying that the nature of the threats facing the United States homeland continues to evolve. My complete statement, which has been submitted for the record, emphasizes that we are not ignoring the serious threat from terrorist organizations other than al Qaeda, from domestic, home-grown terrorists, and from foreign intelligence services. To successfully continue to address all of these threats, the FBI is committed to remaining flexible enough to adapt our mission and our resources to stay one step ahead of our enemies.

 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to make this statement.

 

SEN. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Director. Let the record show that all members of the committee have been provided a list of FBI entities that have been created to address the terrorist threat since 9/11, 2001, and I would certainly recommend that to my colleagues and to all present.

 

Admiral, you're next.

 

ADM. JACOBY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My more detailed statement for the record addresses a number of substantive threats and concerns, many of which were covered by Director Tenet in his opening statement. I look forward to further discussions on those subjects during the question-and-answer session to follow.

 

What I'd like to do with these brief opening remarks is give my perspective on the state of Defense Intelligence today and outline plans for transforming our capabilities, personnel and processes to better address the security -- the very quickly-changing security environment.

 

As I said in my written statement, Defense Intelligence is at war on a global scale, and all of our resources, people and systems are completely engaged. I would also note, Mr. Chairman, that the two members of your staff that you recognized at the beginning of the hearing are representative of a tremendous number of intelligence reservists who are serving and have served and are still to be called to support these efforts.

 

Given the current state of the world and the likely future, I expect that these conditions will continue indefinitely. We're committed in support of our military forces fighting the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and other locations, such as the southern Philippines, where that war might take us. We support our military forces deployed worldwide, even as they increasingly are targeted by terrorists.

 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, detailed intelligence is essential long before our forces actually deploy. This effort, termed intelligence preparation in the battle space, has been ongoing for many months to support potential force deployment in Iraq.

 

Meanwhile, other Defense Intelligence resources are committed to a careful assessment of the dangerous situation on the Korean peninsula.

 

Beyond these obvious priorities, Defense Intelligence is providing global awareness, meaning that we are watching every day for developments that might be of concern or might require U.S. military employment. These situations include such varying things as internal instability and the threat of coups that could require evacuation of American citizens, an interdiction of shipments and material associated with weapons of mass destruction.

 

We recognize that we must know something about everything or are expected to know something about everything, and that is a daunting task when we're already at war on a global scale. Our prolonged high level of commitment is straining personnel, equipment and resources and is reducing capacity for sustaining activities such as training, education, data-base maintenance and longer-term research and analysis.

 

I'm increasingly concerned that Defense Intelligence is being stretched too thin and we have no choice but to sacrifice important longer-term efforts to respond to today's requirements. These longer- term efforts include weapons proliferation, instability in several key states and regions, and assessments with respect to Russia, China, South Asia, parts of Europe, Latin America and the Middle East.

 

The old Defense Intelligence threat paradigm, which focused primarily on the military capabilities of a small set of potential adversary states, no longer applies. More importantly, today's concerns are not lesser-included cases. In the emerging environment, traditional concepts of security, deterrence, intelligence, warning and military superiority are not adequate. We must adapt our capabilities to these new conditions just as potential adversaries pursue new ways to diminish our overwhelming power.

 

While the challenges facing us are daunting, I am enthusiastic about the opportunity we have to fundamentally change our Defense Intelligence capabilities. Defense Intelligence transformation will be the center point of my tenure as director.

 

To be successful, we must move out in a number of areas. First, we must improve our analytic capabilities. We must be able to rapidly convert information into knowledge. That is what we pay our analysts to do, and we must ensure that they have immediate access to all sources of data and are supported by cutting-edge information technologies.

 

To be successful, we must shift our collection paradigm from reconnaissance to surveillance, discard the notion that the collectors own the information they collect, and create a collection strategy that ensures all relevant capabilities -- national, theater, tactical and commercial -- are developed and applied as a system of systems to ensure targeted, intrusive and persistent access to an adversary's true secrets.

 

We also must field information management tools that encompass the best commercial-sector practices and applications.

 

Finally, recognizing that knowledge in the heads of our people is our most precious commodity, we must recruit, train and retain intelligence professionals with the right mix of experience, skills, abilities and motivations. The importance of the human dimension will only increase as our reliance on judgment and predictive analysis is challenged by an increasingly ambiguous security environment and significantly larger quantities of information.

 

We're working hard to address these issues and to develop the processes, techniques and capabilities necessary to address the current threat and deal with emerging challenges. With your continued support, I'm confident we'll be able to provide our war-fighters, policymakers and planners assured access to the intelligence they need.

 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the question session.

 

SEN. ROBERTS: Okay, we thank you, Admiral. And now we look forward to the statement by Assistant Secretary Ford.

 

MR. FORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would very much appreciate just simply putting my testimony into the record and moving on to the question and answers.

 

SEN. ROBERTS: Are you sure you're feeling all right? (Laughter.)

 

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

 

SEN. ROBERTS: All right, we thank you very much for your cooperation.

 

The order of questions is as follows, with a five-minute time period, the chair, the vice chair, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Warner, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, Senator Bond, Senator Feinstein, Senator DeWine -- and while I mention Senator DeWine, I want to thank him for accompanying me in visiting six or seven of the 13 agencies where we hope we are learning more, and we can really fill some shortfalls in terms of the assets that we see them -- Senator Chambliss, Senator Snowe, Senator Mikulski and Senator Lott.

 

Let me start with Bob Mueller. And, Bob, I got a call this morning, about 10 minutes before I came to the hearing room, from my wife. And she indicated -- she said, "Dear, what did you do with the duct tape and the plastic sheet that used to cover the El Camino?"

 

And I was quoting an article on the front page of the local newspaper, the fountain of all knowledge in Washington, and it's down on the left-hand side -- I think you've read it -- where some nameless official indicated that people should start collecting bottled water, food and duct-tape one particular area of their home, and also have plastic sheeting. She was quite concerned that as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I didn't tell her to do this prior to this event.

 

And we've heard a lot of news about the increased dangers of the terrorist attacks; all three of you -- all four of you; Secretary Ford's statement. And I know this has really disturbed many Americans, and I suspect many members of the public are wondering what they can or should do in light of the increased danger.

 

So what advice would you offer to the man or woman on the street, other than to get out of the street?

 

MR. MUELLER: I would start, I believe, Mr. Chairman, by saying we have to put this in perspective, that we are in a period of heightened risks based on intelligence, and we will go through additional periods like this in the future.

 

I do believe that our day-in, day-out life has changed since September 11th. We do have a heightened risk of attack from terrorist organizations, most particularly al Qaeda. And during certain periods, we believe -- and this is one of them -- there is a heightened risk of an attack, both overseas and in the United States.

 

By saying that, we also must indicate our belief that Americans should go about their business, not cancel plans that they had, because we have no specifics as to the particular places or timing, but that we all should be more alert.

 

Rarely does a day go by that we do not get a call from a concerned citizen who has seen something out of the ordinary that has called a police department or has called the FBI and said, "This is a little bit out of the ordinary; perhaps you ought to look at this."