Kit-Bond_07202010_001.txt

Thank you, Madam Chair, I join you in welcoming General Jim Clapper to the Committee for the consideration of his nomination to serve as the next Director of National Intelligence.
 
The out-going Director of National Intelligence Admiral Dennis Blair deserves our thanks for his many years of service to the nation, including his work as the previous DNI. 
 
Admiral Blair faced a number of unfortunate challenges during his tenure as other Administration officials increasingly assumed greater control over Intelligence Community activities. 
 
The next DNI must have the political clout and will-power to ensure that our intelligence agencies are able to get their vital work done without being micro-managed by the Department of Justice and the National Security Council.  It is my hope that the next DNI will assert this needed leadership over the intelligence community.
 
Something the George W. Bush Administration got right in this area was placing key people in the jobs that were responsible to the Congress.  For example, there was no question that John Negroponte, and then most notably, Admiral Mike McConnell, were the President’s principal intelligence advisors as they should be under United States law.  The public did not even know the names of the intelligence staffers on the National Security Council.   
 
Today, the paradigm has been reversed; we have a staffer on the National Security Council who most people in the Intelligence Community believe acts as the real DNI.  He calls the shots and even goes on national television to pitch the Administration’s viewpoints.  A June 6th Washington Post article was spot-on in describing his role today in intelligence. 
 
This is not good for the country and it is contrary to Congress’ intent for the IC.  If the President would like him to act as his principal intelligence advisor and head of the Intelligence Community then I will be happy to co-host his confirmation hearing with the Chair.  But if not, then this template needs to change.
 
Turning to you, General Clapper, you have served our nation well, and you have a long background in very demanding leadership roles in the Intelligence Community; I thank you for an impressive 46 years of service to our nation in the field of intelligence. 
 
But you know that I have concerns about whether you will be able to do what Director Blair could not.  You have talked about leaving federal service for some time, yet you are now seeking one of the hardest jobs in Washington, one fraught with tension.  Frankly, today, I ask you to tell us exactly why.
 
Our nation is at a critical point; we are six years into this experiment of Intelligence Reform and we have a long way to go. 
 
The recent Washington Post “Top Secret” series highlights what I have been saying for a long time – the intelligence community is lacking effective oversight – and today I hope we can focus on whether you, General Clapper, will have the horsepower needed in the White House to use the DNI as the position of reform it needs to be.
 
The next DNI needs to be a “fire in the gut” guy who is willing to break paradigms and trend against business as usual.  He needs to be someone who is not reluctantly accepting this job, but is willing to take on the old guard and change broken ways of going about intelligence.
 
We don’t need our top spy chief to be a figurehead who cedes authority to the Justice Department; instead, we need a DNI who can oversee our nation’s terror-fighting policy.
 
We need a DNI who will push the envelope on his authorities and advance the institution’s ability to lead our intelligence agencies.  Just as important, we need someone who can throw some elbows and take back control of our intelligence agencies from DoJ, White House bureaucrats, and even DOD; also he must establish a clear chain of command between the CIA and the DNI.
 
While the 2004 Intelligence Reform Bill was certainly a step forward in our efforts to reform the Intelligence Community, it fell well short of what I hoped Congress would achieve.  Namely, it gave the DNI a load of responsibility without the authority needed to lead truly our intelligence agencies. 
 
The arm-wrestling that took place between DNI Blair and the CIA Director over who would appoint the DNI’s representatives overseas was a clear sign to me that we do not yet have the right balance.  We must get it right if we hope to meet the national security challenges ahead.
Previously, you have been inconsistent in whether the DNI should be granted additional authorities to lead our intelligence agencies.  While some have rationalized this wavering as an example of the adage “where you sit, is where you stand”—in other words, you will protect the turf of whatever institution you lead, I take little comfort in this explanation.  This is not the hallmark of the sort of leader we need at the head of our Intelligence Community.
 
You referenced in your opening statement that a number of members have raised concerns about your affiliation with the Department of Defense.  Well, General, this is a valid concern.  When the President called the Chair and me to inform us of your nomination, his first selling point was that you were strongly supported by Defense Secretary Gates and the Senate Armed Services Committee.  I have to tell you, General, that is not the best way to put you forward to this Committee as the next leader of the Intelligence Community.  We are happy that the Defense Department and Armed Service Committee love you, but frankly that raises some eyebrows.
 
Now, let me be clear, I am a big supporter of the Defense Department.  My son finished two tours in Iraq not too long ago, and three of my staff on this Committee voluntarily took leaves of absences over the past two years to serve in harm’s way in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan.  But at the strategic level an over-emphasis on DoD within the Intelligence Community can be counter-productive.  We have seen this problem with the State Department in its struggle to regain the lead from the Pentagon in Smart Power activities.
 
This is one reason the memo from your office to the Senate Armed Services Committee a few weeks ago that criticized 17 specific provisions in this Committee’s authorization bill was not well received.  You said that you felt obligated to afford the Armed Services Committee the opportunity to hear your criticisms of our bill.  We would have appreciated that same courtesy being extended to this Committee, first and foremost. 
 
Seeing as it is OUR bill, and you ARE dual-hatted as the DNI’s Director of Defense Intelligence, your memo is something that I believe you should address up front and on the record at the end of your opening statement today.
 
We must get the relationship between the IC and its overseers right.  Congressional oversight is instrumental in advancing the DNI’s leadership of the Intelligence Community.  Through such oversight, Congress can ensure not only that the DNI understands the expectations of his position, but that other agencies recognize the DNI’s leadership. 
 
General, much of your previous contact with this Committee has been far too reluctant and reactive.  We must have a DNI who works proactively to meet his obligations under the law to keep the Senate Intelligence Committee fully and currently informed, and that requires a good and open working relationship.
 
Today is your opportunity to instill in this Committee the confidence that you are up to the task of leading the Intelligence Community while complying with your statutory obligations to work with this Committee. 
 
I wish you the best, sir.
 
Madam Chair, we have had far too many DNI confirmation hearings in our time together on the SSCI.  I believe this high turnover rate is a symptom of the inadequate authorities that IRTPA vested in the DNI.
 
If we are unable to address those legislative short-comings in the remaining time in this Congress, then I hope this is something the Committee will begin to address next year in the new Congress.
 
Thank you, Madam Chair.