Open Hearing: Current and Projected National Security Threats to the United States

[Senate Hearing 111-62] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office] S. Hrg. 111-62 CURRENT AND PROJECTED NATIONAL SECURITY THREATS TO THE UNITED STATES ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ FEBRUARY 12, 2009 __________ Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Intelligence Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/ senate U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 50-026 WASHINGTON : 2009 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE [Established by S. Res. 400, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.] DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California, Chairman CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri, Vice Chairman JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah Virginia OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine RON WYDEN, Oregon SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia EVAN BAYH, Indiana RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland TOM COBURN, Oklahoma RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho BILL NELSON, Florida SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island HARRY REID, Nevada, Ex Officio MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky, Ex Officio CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Ex Officio JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Ex Officio ---------- David Grannis, Staff Director Louis B. Tucker, Minority Staff Director Kathleen P. McGhee, Chief Clerk CONTENTS ---------- FEBRUARY 12, 2009 OPENING STATEMENTS Opening Statement of Hon. Dianne Feinstein, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from California........................................ 1 Bond, Hon. Christopher S., Vice Chairman, a U.S. Senator from Missouri....................................................... 2 WITNESS Admiral Dennis C. Blair, USN (Ret.), Director of National Intelligence................................................... 4 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Prepared Statement of Admiral Dennis C. Blair.................... 10 Kathleen Turner, Director of Legislative Affairs, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, letter transmitting responses to questions from Committee Members, April 24, 2009.. 80 CURRENT AND PROJECTED NATIONAL SECURITY THREATS TO THE UNITED STATES ---------- THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2009 U.S. Senate, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m., in Room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, the Honorable Dianne Feinstein (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. Committee Members Present: Senators Feinstein, Rockefeller, Wyden, Bayh, Mikulski, Feingold, Nelson of Florida, Whitehouse, Bond, Hatch, Snowe, Chambliss, and Risch. Chairman Feinstein. The hearing will come to order. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, CHAIRMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA Our hearing today is the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's 15th annual Worldwide Threat hearing. Today we're going to hear testimony from Director Dennis Blair, the Director of the national intelligence community. This will be his first testimony to us since assuming his new position, so congratulations, Director, and welcome. As the DNI, Mr. Blair is in charge of the 16 agencies that comprise the intelligence community. Since he is the manager of the entire IC, Director Blair has requested that he be the sole witness at the table, and the Committee has agreed to his request. It should be said, however, that his testimony and responses today reflect the analytical judgments of all of the intelligence agencies. Director Blair, we understand you've been on the job for two weeks and should not be expected to know every nuance of every judgment held by tens of thousands of intelligence analysts. We expect that you will turn, if you need to, to other experts behind you to provide more detailed responses to Members' questions. That's up to you. At times the intelligence community speaks with one voice. At other times there are differing views held by one or more agencies on a topic of vital interest to our national security. I think we believe that this is not a shortcoming; it is a strength. We should view the free and open exchanges of the intelligence community to be a strength. The President and his advisers, our leaders in the military and diplomatic corps, and Members of Congress need to know all the perspectives and all the threats to better set the policies to protect our union, and that is the point of this. So, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I welcome you to your first public World Threat hearing. And I will now turn to the distinguished Vice Chairman for his remarks, and then we will have seven-minute rounds based on the early bird rule. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, VICE CHAIRMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI Vice Chairman Bond. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I join with her in welcoming the new Director, Director Blair, before the Committee--your first time as the DNI. And we would note, as we've discussed before, that the intelligence community has significantly improved its capabilities and performance since 2004 when we passed the reorganization. But work remains to be done. We look forward to working with you in this Congress to help where we need to in legislation. Today you're going to discuss current and projected threats, and our nation's senior leaders depend upon good information from the intelligence community. Most Americans never know the sacrifices made by, or the tremendous debt we owe, the brave men and women who are the front lines facing threats we are about to discuss, and in many areas do work that the public will never know about. It's our responsibility on the Committee to ensure that the agencies have the resources, capabilities and authorities, and to do so we need to be kept informed of the threats, issues and regional developments so we know how to best provide for them. At times it seems to me that people tend to forget the direct assault on this country on September 11th, over seven years ago, the lessons we learned from that day, and those who were responsible have vowed to inflict more harm upon us. We went into Afghanistan, deposed the Taliban, removed the threat to the United States from al-Qa'ida sanctuaries there. And we went into and removed the base operations of al-Qa'ida in Iraq. But we still have not been able to eliminate the al- Qa'ida and the Taliban insurgencies emanating from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan, which fuel the Afghan insurgency and allow al-Qa'ida to organize, train and plan operations. And we look forward to working with you on formulating a good policy. The continued existence and operations of al-Qa'ida with global outreach continue to be of concern. While we focus our efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, al-Qa'ida operatives in Algeria, the Sahel, Yemen, the Horn of Africa are able to train, rest and prepare for attacks in the region and against the U.S. or our allies. We have to pay attention to al-Qa'ida wherever it operates and we look forward to getting information from you on that. I'm also very much concerned about the motives of Iranian leaders who continue to provide overt support, training, weapons and assistance to militants in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as to organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The intelligence community told us in late 1907 that we did not know Iran's intentions, but we knew it was pursing a weapons capability in the nuclear field until at least 2003. Additionally, we now see Tehran making significant advancements in its civilian nuclear program, which could give Iran the technical capability necessary to produce highly-enriched uranium, which requires very careful attention. And we constantly hear a litany of other threats that face the United States, including the intensification of disagreements with Russia, the possibility of an outbreak of hostilities between India and Pakistan, Chinese-Taiwan confrontation, the North Korean nuclear program, continued proliferations of missiles and weapons of mass destruction, as well as any number of foreign intelligence organizations that seek to spy on and weaken the U.S. Other threats are out there. One year ago your predecessor, Mike McConnell, presciently warned us about the increasing threat in the cyber realm. He said, ``The U.S. information technology infrastructure, which includes telecommunications, computer networks and systems, and the data that reside on those systems is critical to virtually every aspect of our modern life. On threats to our IT infrastructure, an important focus of this community, we assess that nations, including Russia and China, have long had the technical capabilities to target U.S. information systems for intelligence collection.'' ``The worrisome part,'' he said last year, ``is today they could also target information infrastructure systems for degradation or destruction.'' And I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. Additionally, I think we've become aware that energy, and its control, in many nations which are not friendly to us allows them to have a very large and potentially harmful impact on international security and international relations. We have seen what they have been able to do with cutting off of supplies, what some of our major energy producers have been able to accomplish in the foreign policy realms by cutting off energy supplies and threatening to do so. My personal belief is that our inability to get the most effective pressure on Iran that we could pose, from an economic standpoint, is our inability to cut off the supply of refined petroleum to Iran. And it is my strong suspicion that the energy supply lines have influenced, and perhaps kept, some of our allies who should be as concerned as we are about Iran, from utilizing that very, very important economic and diplomatic weapon. We need to do a better job on that, as we've discussed with you. We are sadly lacking in energy intelligence from hostile nations. Finally, one of the biggest threats we face, as always, is what we haven't uncovered yet--the unknown threat that falls outside our spheres of collection, flies under the radar and is not recognizable as a threat to any of our sources. The intelligence community has to see beyond traditional security models, break down old threat paradigms and create new methodologies and tradecraft for recognizing the threats we haven't seen before. This means we have to recognize that we don't always know what we don't know, and find a way to discover it anyway. My primary concern, as ever, is being able to prevent attacks on the U.S. and to guarantee the continued safety of the American people. I'd look to you now to help us to find what those threats may be. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, again, welcome Mr. Director. Chairman Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chairman. And we'll now proceed to you, Mr. Director. I wonder if I might ask that you confine your remarks to 15 minutes, if that's convenient. If it isn't, just ask for more time so that we have ample time to ask questions. Thank you. OPENING STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL DENNIS BLAIR, USN (RET.), DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE Director Blair. Yes, Madam Chair. Fifteen minutes should be plenty adequate. And I would like to thank the Committee for confirming me since we last met. After two weeks on the job, I can tell you it's a tremendously patriotic, highly-skilled and brave workforce that I have the pleasure to lead. And in the preparation for this testimony this afternoon, and other editions of it that that will come later, we had a lively exchange; everybody participated. I'm happy to say that we do share the facts in the intelligence community quite widely, but we often have different opinions. And, as the Chairman said, I think that's a healthy way to do it, and I heard a lot of that debate as I was preparing to speak to you this afternoon. I'd like to begin my remarks--and my remarks are not just looking at threats but also looking at opportunities and looking at the security landscape that we face. I think at the beginning of a new administration, at the beginning of a new Congress, it's a good time to take stock and see where the United States needs to go to protect its interests in a major way before we get into all of the details of having to go operational as we must, and it's in that spirit that I offer my remarks. I'd like to begin with the global economic crisis because it already looms as the most serious one in decades, if not in centuries. Since September, 2008, 10 nations have committed to new IMF programs. Unlike the 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis, countries will not be able to export their way out of this one because of the global nature. Chairman Feinstein. The mics are difficult, and you have to speak--pull it as close to you as you can, and you have to speak unidirectionally into it. Director Blair. All right, I will try to keep my head still. Thank you. Chairman Feinstein. Thanks. Director Blair. The stakes in this are high. Mexico, with its close trade links to the United States, is vulnerable to a prolonged U.S. recession. Europe and the former Soviet Union have experienced anti-state demonstrations. Much of the former Soviet Union, Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa lack sufficient cash reserves and access to international aid. Economic crises increase the risk of regime-threatening instability if they are prolonged for a one- to two-year period, and instability can loosen the fragile hold that many developing countries have on law and order, which can spill out in dangerous ways into the international community. There are some silver linings. With low oil prices, Venezuela will face financial constraints this year. Iran's president faces less-than-certain prospects for reelection in June. However, a serious energy supply crunch may happen in the longer-term future if sustained low prices lead to the deferral or the canceling of energy infrastructure projects in the near term. So it's a confluence of events there. This crisis presents challenges for the United States. We're generally held to be responsible for it. The November G- 20 summit has brought the influence of emerging market nations into the larger group, but the U.S. also has opportunities to demonstrate increased leadership. Our openness, developed skills and workforce mobility put us in a better position to reinvent ourselves. Moreover, Washington will have the opportunity to fashion new global structures that can benefit all. Moving now to terrorism, we have seen progress in Muslim opinion turning against terrorist groups. Over the last 18 months al-Qa'ida has faced public criticism from prominent religious leaders and even from fellow extremists. In 2008, these terrorists did not achieve their goal of conducting another major attack on the U.S., and no major country is at immediate risk of collapse from extremist terrorist groups. Replacing the loss of key leaders since 2008 in Pakistan's Federal Administered Tribal Areas has proved difficult for al- Qa'ida. Al-Qa'ida in Iraq has been squeezed. Saudi Arabia's aggressive counterterrorism efforts have rendered the Kingdom a harsh operating environment for al-Qa'ida. But despite these setbacks, al-Qa'ida remains dangerous. Yemen is reemerging as a jihadist battleground. The capabilities of terrorist groups in East Africa will increase in the next year, and we remain concerned about the potential for homegrown American extremists inspired by al-Qa'ida's militant ideology to plan attacks within the United States. There are many challenges in that region that stretches from the Middle East to South Asia, despite this progress against countering violent extremism that I recounted. The U.S. has strong tools, from military force to diplomacy. We have good relations with the vast majority of states in the region, and we will need all of these tools in order to help forge a durable structure of peace and renewed prosperity in the region. The revival of Iran as a regional power, the deepening of ethnic, sectarian and economic divisions across most of the region, the looming leadership succession among U.S. allies are all reshaping this landscape. Hezbollah and Hamas, with support from Persian Iran, have successfully seized the mantle of resistance to Israel from moderate secular Arab regimes. Battle lines are increasingly drawn, not between Israel and Arab countries, but also between secular Arab nationalists and ascendant Islamic nationalist movements inside the Arab states. The Iranian regime views the United States as its principal enemy and also as a threat to them. A more assertive regional Iranian foreign policy, coupled with its dogged development of a deliverable nuclear weapon, alarms most of the governments from Riyadh to Tel Aviv. The Levant is the key focal area for these strategic shifts. Recent fighting between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip has deepened Palestinian political divisions. It has also widened the rift between regional moderates--led by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan--and hardliners, including Iran, Hezbollah and Syria. With Hamas controlling Gaza and Hezbollah growing stronger in Lebanon, progress on a Palestinian-Israeli accord is going to be more difficult. With Iran developing a nuclear weapon capability and with Israel determined not to allow it, there is potential for an Iran-Israeli confrontation or crisis. Moderate Arab states fear a nuclear-armed Iran, but without progress on the Palestine settlement, they're harder put to defend their ties to the United States. In Iraq, coalition and Iraqi operations and dwindling popular tolerance for violence are sidelining the extremists. Fewer Iraqis are dying at the hands of their countrymen than at any time in the past two years. Nevertheless, disputed internal boundaries, Sunni perceptions of government repression, or increased foreign support to insurgent or militia groups could reverse political and security process, and Baghdad will also be coping with declining oil revenues, its primary source of government budgets. In Afghanistan, the Taliban-dominated insurgency forces have demonstrated greater aggressiveness in recent months. Improved governance and extended developments were hampered in 2008 by a lack of security. Afghan leaders must tackle endemic corruption and an extensive drug trade. Progress has been made in expanding and fielding the Afghan National Army, but many factors hamper efforts to make these units capable of independent action. The upcoming 2009 presidential election will present a greater security challenge than did that in 2004, and insurgents probably will make a concerted effort to disrupt it. And no improvement is possible in Afghanistan without Pakistan taking control of its border areas, improving governance and creating economic and educational opportunities throughout the country. In 2008, Islamabad intensified its counterinsurgency efforts, but its record in dealing with militants has been mixed, as it balances conflicting internal and counterterrorist priorities. The government is losing authority in the north and the west. And even in the more developed areas of the country, mounting economic hardships and frustration over poor governance have given rise to greater radicalization. The time when only a few states had access to the most dangerous technologies is long over. Often dual use, they circulate easily in our globalized economy, as does the scientific expertise to put them together into weapons. It's difficult for the United States and its partners to track efforts to acquire components and production technologies. They're widely available. Traditional deterrence and diplomacy constraints may not prevent terrorist groups from using mass- effect weapons. So, one of the most important security challenges facing the United States is fashioning a more effective nonproliferation strategy with our partners in this effort. The assessment that was in our 2007 National Intelligence Estimate about Iran's nuclear weapons programs are generally still valid today. Tehran, at a minimum, is keeping open the option to develop deliverable nuclear weapons. The halt in the recent past in some aspects of the program was primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure. Some combination of threats--threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security goals--might prompt Tehran to extend the halt to some nuclear weapons-related activities. Turning to Asia, rapidly becoming a long-term locus of power in the world, Japan remains the second-largest economy and a strong ally, but the global downturn is also exacting a heavy toll on Japan's economy. To realize its aspirations to play a stronger regional and even global role will require political leadership and some difficult decisions. The rising giants, China and India, are playing increasing regional roles economically, politically and militarily. China tries to secure access to markets, commodities and energy supplies needed to sustain domestic economic growth, and their diplomacy seeks favorable relations with other powers, especially the United States, in order to facilitate it. The global economic slowdown threatens China's domestic stability and China's leaders are taking both economic and security actions to deal with it. Taiwan, as an area of tension in U.S.-China relations, has substantially relaxed. The Taiwan President Ma, inaugurated in May, has resumed dialogue with Beijing, and leaders on both sides of the straits are cautiously optimistic about less- confrontational relations. But preparations for a possible Taiwan conflict nevertheless drive modernization goals for the People's Liberation Army, and China's security interests are broadening beyond Taiwan. A full civilian and military space capability and formidable capabilities in cyberspace are being rapidly developed. China will attempt to develop at least a limited naval power projection capability, which is already reflected in anti-piracy operations off the coast of Somalia. Like China, India's expanding economy will lead New Delhi to pursue new trade partners, gain access to vital energy markets and generate other resources that sustain rapid growth. India's growth rate will slow this coming year, but ample reserves and a sound banking system will help ensure relative stability. Determined efforts by Indian and Pakistan leaders to improve relations could unravel unless Islamabad, for its part, takes meaningful steps to cut support to anti-Indian militant groups and New Delhi, for its part, makes credible efforts to allay Pakistan's security concerns. The increase in violent attacks within India is a cause of great concern to its government, as is instability in neighboring countries in South Asia. On the global stage, Indian leaders will continue to follow an independent course. That we are both democracies does not guarantee a congruence of interests. Nonetheless, good relations with the United States will be essential for India to realize its global ambitions. Although the Middle East and Asia have the highest call on our attention, our concerns are broader. Russia is actively cultivating relations with regional powers, including China, Iran, Venezuela. Moscow also is trying to maintain control over energy networks to Europe and East Asia. Russian leaders have recently spoken positively about the possibilities for change in the U.S.-Russian dynamic but NATO enlargement, the conflict over Georgia's separatist regions, and missile defense will all pose difficulties. In Latin America, populist, often autocratic regimes pose challenges to the region's longer-term success. Basic law and order issues, including rising violent crime and powerful drug- trafficking organizations confront the key hemispheric nations, as do uneven governance and institution-building efforts in combating chronic corruption. The corruptive influence and increasing violence of Mexican drug cartels impedes Mexico City's ability to govern parts of its country. Unless the United States is able to deliver market access on a permanent basis, its traditionally privileged position in the region could erode with an concomitant decline in political influence. Africa has made substantial economic and political progress over the last decade. The level of open warfare has declined significantly, especially in Liberia, Sierra Leone and the Ivory Coast. But the drop in commodity prices and the global recession will test the durability of the region's recent positive growth trend. Even before the current crisis, the six percent GDP growth rate of the continent, though impressive, could not bring about the necessary structural reforms to reduce poverty, and a number of intractable conflicts persist in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Sudan, and Somalia. In Darfur, U.N. peace talks remain stymied and a larger peacekeeping force is slow to deploy. Let me finish with the long-term challenge of environmental security and the threats to our information technology infrastructure. Adding more than a billion people to the world's population by 2025 will put pressure on clean energy sources and food and water supplies. Most of the world's population will move from rural areas to urban areas seeking greater opportunity. Many, particularly in Asia, will achieve more advanced lifestyles with a greater per capita consumption and greater per capita generation of pollution. According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, physical effects of climate change will worsen in coming years. Multilateral policymaking on climate change is likely to be substantial and a growing priority within traditional security affairs. The world sees the United States in a pivotal leadership role. As effects of climate change mount, the U.S. will come under increasing pressure to help the international community set goals for emission reductions and to help others through technical progress. And finally, threats to our information technology infrastructure are an important IC focus, as they were last year, as the Vice Chairman mentioned. Our information infrastructure is both becoming indispensable to the functioning of our society and it's becoming vulnerable to catastrophic disruption in a way that the old analog decentralized systems were not. Cyber systems are being targeted for exploitation and potential for disruption or destruction by a growing array of both state and non-state actors. If I could have two more minutes, Madam Chairman, I think I can finish up. Thank you. Network defense technologies exist. They're widely available but they often are not uniformly adopted within our networks. A number of nations, including Russia and China, can disrupt elements of the U.S. information infrastructure. We must take proactive measures to detect and prevent intrusions before they do significant damage. We must recognize that cyber defense is not a one-time fix. It requires continual involvement in hardware, in software, in cyber defenses, and in personnel. The international security environment we face is complex. The global financial crisis has exacerbated what was already a growing set of political and economic uncertainties. We're nevertheless in a strong position to shape a world reflecting universal aspirations and values that have motivated Americans since 1776--human rights, the rule of law, liberal market economics, social justice. Whether we can succeed will depend in part on the actions we take here at home--restoring strong economic growth, maintaining the scientific and technological edge, defending ourselves at reasonable cost while preserving our civil liberties. It will also depend on our actions abroad, not only in how we deal with regions, regimes, and individual crises, but also in developing new cooperative multilateral approaches, whether they're formal or informal, for effective international cooperation in areas like trade and finance, in neutralizing extremist groups using terrorism, in controlling the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, in developing codes of conduct in defenses in cyberspace and in real space, and in mitigating and slowing the effects of global climate change. Madam Chairman, thank you very much. I'm ready to turn this into a discussion. Chairman Feinstein. You have said what you want to say? Director Blair. I have. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Director Blair follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0026.046 Chairman Feinstein. Good. Good. Let me begin. I'm looking at a National Public Radio release dated February 3rd of this year and it begins, ``CIA-directed air strikes against al-Qa'ida leaders and facilities in Pakistan over the past six to nine months have been so successful, according to senior U.S. officials, that it is now possible to foresee a `complete al-Qa'ida defeat' in the mountainous region along the border with Afghanistan.'' Do you agree with this statement? Has, in fact, al-Qa'ida leadership been decimated? Is it close to defeat? If not, please explain why you disagree. If this is not the case, why then are senior U.S. officials discussing this with the press? Director Blair. Madam Chairman, I think that senior al- Qa'ida leadership is considerably less powerful, able to communicate with its forces, able to plan and conduct attacks than it was a year ago, two years ago. I would not share whoever it was who talked to that radio station's judgment that we are within sight of victory or that it is giving up on its aspirations both against the United States as partners and against the countries in the region. I have no idea why people would talk in those terms when the facts as I know them are not that optimistic. Chairman Feinstein. I don't know whether you'd care to comment on this, but I also notice that Mr. Holbrooke in Pakistan ran into considerable concern about the use of the Predator strikes in the FATA area of Pakistan, and yet, as I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base. The question I have is how do you view this situation? If the Pakistanis won't go in and decimate the terrorist leadership, and the terrorist leadership is allowed to grow, it's going to impact Pakistan negatively, perhaps even to the extent of one day hopefully not but possibly taking down its government. How do we develop the kind of nexus we should have with the government of Pakistan to really have an effective attack on people who are major national security threats both to Pakistan, to Afghanistan, and to our own country? Director Blair. Madam Chairman, I think you put your finger on the key to dealing with the terrorists and extremist groups in that area. It does depend on Pakistan's effort, with our assistance. I think that Pakistan is sorting out some of those questions itself internally because the relationship between groups and tribes and the government and the security services and the armed forces has been very complicated in Pakistan in the past and there are a lot of different agendas being played out within those circles. I think for our part we have to give it intense and persistent leadership. We have to let the Pakistanis know that we're there working with them for the long haul against these common threats, and that they need to come to the realization with the point that you basically expressed, that these are as much a threat to Pakistan as they are to others and they really need to put their shoulder to the wheel in a way that benefits all of us. I'm not sure that all of Pakistan is quite there yet and that's really our challenge. Chairman Feinstein. Let me, if I might, change to Hezbollah. Director Tenet used to tell us that Hezbollah was really far more sophisticated than most other groups of its type. In the wake of the 2006 war with Israel, has Hezbollah's position strengthened or weakened? Director Blair. Strengthened. Chairman Feinstein. And you believe that today, then, it is a stronger threat to the United States or a stronger threat to Israel? How is it in effect a stronger threat today? Director Blair. I think it's a stronger threat today because it has rebuilt the weapon stocks that it used up in the 2006 war. It has learned lessons from that war which it has applied to its capability in the future, and so it is better prepared for future conflict. As to what it will actually do, that's a harder question. It certainly believes that Israel is the enemy and the Israelis believe that Hezbollah is the enemy so there's a confrontation there that will go on for some time. The attitude towards the United States, I think, is influenced by Iranian relations with the United States and Iranian calculations of what the effect of violence would be. So I think that it's really at least a three-sided game--United States, Israel, Iran, Hezbollah--four-sided. Syria is a fifth part of that calculation but your fundamental question about the capability, I think they are stronger than they were before. Chairman Feinstein. Thank you. Now, I wanted to get in one more question and tap your experience as CINCPAC and your knowledge of the Chinese-Taiwanese situation. I've read all your writings on the subject and I basically agree with your comments and I think they're very perceptive and astute. The relationship has a very difficult dynamic to it--all the missiles on the coast of China faced at Taiwan, our defense sales to Taiwan which then irritate the Chinese, and yet the Chinese now beginning to take action to sort of soothe the waters. The latest, I guess, is the head of the big, beautiful museum in Taipei going to Beijing to facilitate some sharing of art, which is also a small, but nonetheless welcome sign. How do you view, in this new dynamic, the China-Taiwan relationship? What should we be aware of and what should we look out for? Director Blair. I think, Madam Chairman, that the developments since President Ma was elected are the most positive that we've seen in recent years. And the steps that are being taken between his government and China are very encouraging in terms of working on practical problems like travel, bank transfers, art and so on. I think that developing some momentum in terms of things that can be done for the benefit of both sides are important and I applaud both sides for taking those steps. I think that as far as what we can do, a key part of it is making sure that military measures are unattractive to all sides, to both sides in that confrontation. And that means maintaining the balance, which is really what the Taiwan Relations Act calls for. So clearly, on the one hand, Taiwan should not be so defenseless that it feels that it has to do everything that China says. On the other hand, China cannot be so overwhelming that it can bully Taiwan. On the other hand, Taiwan has to realize that its long-term security lies in some sort of an arrangement with China. It does not lie in military defenses. So if we can keep that balance correct, then all of the incentives are toward solving the problems in political and people-to-people ways. And I think they can, over time. I think there are arrangements that could be made that would give Taiwan the international space that they feel they deserve and give China the reassurance that one China is a realistic policy. And so we just have to encourage the events and make sure that military adventures are unattractive. Chairman Feinstein. Thank you. My time is up. Vice Chairman. Vice Chairman Bond. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Director, many of us on this Committee criticized the way the 2007 NIE on Iran was drafted, which in the key unclassified judgments left the impression in the public that intelligence community was not concerned about Iran's nuclear efforts. Indeed, today's article in The Los Angeles Times notes statements by the President and Mr. Panetta, when he was before us for confirmation, about the intent of Iran to seek nuclear capability. And they go onto say, ``This language reflects the extent to which senior U.S. officials now discount an NIE issued in November 2007 that was instrumental in derailing U.S. and European efforts to pressure Iran to shut down its nuclear program.'' In light of that, do you believe that the release of intelligence community judgments, and NIEs themselves, can be damaging to our national security interests? Director Blair. Mr. Vice Chairman, I agree that we can cause as much harm as good by releasing many of these NIEs on very difficult subjects in which a great deal of secret intelligence--which the taxpayers have paid an awful lot of money for us to use to collect secrets--are put forth in the wrong way. And I think it's something we have to think carefully about. Frankly, when I was here for confirmation hearings, I was a little less aware of how difficult this question is than I am in the couple of weeks since I've been on the job. The preparing of these remarks was not easy, in trying to figure out what to say in unclassified settings and classified settings. So it's something that I think can cause us problems if not handled very well. Vice Chairman Bond. Well, I would agree with you. I'm a great believer that experience is what you get when you expected to get something else. And I hope the intelligence community learned something from it. I would hope that you would be producing an update of the Iran nuclear NIE. And do you--for the record, at this point--have any assessment of the likelihood that Iran would forgo the development of nuclear weapons? Is there anything that you could say publicly that would indicate they are looking at forgoing this capability that most of us think they are pursuing? Director Blair. I can say in this forum that Iran is clearly developing all the components of a deliverable nuclear weapons program--fissionable material, nuclear weaponizing capability and the means to deliver it. Whether they take it all the way to nuclear weapons and become a nuclear power I think will depend a great deal on their own internal decisions. But I do think that the international community--no one in the international community wants a nuclear-armed Iran either. The question is, what are you going to do about it? And if the international community can put together the right package of sticks and potential reassurances that will meet some of these security concerns that Iran feels, then there's a chance. There's a chance that they will choose another course. Other nations have. I don't think it's a done deal either way, but I think it's going to be a difficult task for the international community both because it's split, and because of the advantages that many Iranians clearly feel would be served by having nuclear weapons. So I would not rule it out, but it's not something that's going to fall off--it's not like falling off a log. Vice Chairman Bond. Turning to an area where you have special expertise and I have a great deal of interest, I noticed that an Indonesian court recently handed out 15-year sentences to Jemaah Islamiyah leaders Abu Dujana and Zarkasih in April of 1908 and they've not conducted a large-scale anti- Western attack since the Bali bombing in October 2005. How would you characterize the relationship we have with Indonesia on counterterrorism and intelligence issues? And how much do you think they have degraded the capabilities of JI, which I regard as a serious terrorist organization? Director Blair. Mr. Vice Chairman, as you say, we've discussed Indonesia and I think we agree that Indonesia has made great strides against JI. Once the Bali bombing really jolted them into realizing what a threat it was to Indonesia, they took very aggressive action. We assisted them in certain ways, but the primary drive and the primary actions were taken by Indonesia--as they were by other Southeast Asian nations who took on this task, Malaysia, Singapore in particular, in addition to Indonesia. So think JI is much weaker than it was. It's not entirely eliminated, but I think Indonesia's done a good job of bringing it under control. Vice Chairman Bond. I agree also with your suggestion in your statement that current low prices for energy, along with the possibility that much higher prices will come when we recover from this economic downturn, which I think is going to happen if we can take the toxic assets out of the financial system, that we face very high fuel prices, with all of the problems that causes. And I know the International Energy Agency has concluded that, just to replace the accelerating depletion and maintain current oil levels through 2030, we'll have to find the equivalent production of four-and-a-half Saudi Arabias. Do you think that we can expect that magnitude of production, given constraints on North American exploration and production, as well as the fact that national oil companies like Venezuela's dominate 80 percent of the world's oil reserves? And do you believe this energy security problem presents a serious threat to our national interest? Director Blair. Yes, sir. I agree completely that it presents a very serious threat. And I also agree with your analysis that if we go on doing as we did before--more nationalized oil companies that are not investing in their infrastructure, low prices currently knocking out oil projects--and then we resume growth, all of the tight supply- demand that we've seen in the last couple of years will be there, with the transportation structure stretched to the limit, small interruptions having huge spikes in prices, the consequence economic disruption. We have got to change that. We have got to change that balance or else we are storing up great trouble for the United States, friends and many others in the world. So it's got to be a multipronged approach of working on both production and alternatives and conservation in order to get off of this oil supply that is strung tight as a wire throughout the world. Vice Chairman Bond. Thank you for a very thoughtful answer. Madam Chair. Chairman Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chairman. Senator Wyden. Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And Director Blair, thank you for your courtesy and responsiveness to me over these last few months. A number of Senators on both sides of the aisle are very concerned about cyber terror, and you've referred to it; colleagues have referred to it. And I want to start my questioning in this area by your assessment of how vulnerable is the U.S. power grid to cyber attack. Director Blair. I think a lot of things have been done in the power grid recently with the realization of its vulnerability. A couple of years ago I'd say it was a piece of cake to people even with quite low skills. Because of the emphasis on it, it's not down at that level; however, a very skilled attack by a group that really knew what it was doing could cause us some problems. So there's a great deal more work that has to be done there. Senator Wyden. I'm also concerned that the development of the smart grid could create more potential vectors for cyber attack. Do you share that view? Director Blair. I think in building a smart grid, Senator, we have to take security into account right from the beginning. As you know, anytime you centralize and make efficient and cut your margins, you open up vulnerabilities not only to just stuff happening but also to malicious attack like cyber. So I don't know the technical details of the SCADA systems and interconnections of the smart grid, but if we don't build in a more robust cyber defense from the very first building block, we're leaving ourselves wide open. Senator Wyden. In your view, Director, are there any terrorist groups capable of mounting a significant cyber attack on our country today? Director Blair. When I think of the things that terrorist groups can do to us, Senator Wyden, the cyber capability is not the one in which I feel they have the greatest skills for the greatest destruction. I think that they have other terrible things they can do to us that they are working on harder, they're better able to do, and they seem to be more motivated to do. So it's possible, but I don't think the combination of terror and cyber is the nexus that we are most worried about. Senator Wyden. Let me turn to another subject, if I could. I've been very concerned about the potential for violence against Iraqi translators that are currently working for our military. It's been important that these individuals' identities be kept secret so they aren't subject to reprisals and retribution from anti-American groups inside the country. I've worked with the Defense Department in this regard to try to protect these translators with masks. DOD has tried to work with our office. But I'm also concerned about the possibility that anti- American elements of Iraqi government ministries might seek to uncover these translators' identities by accessing tax records or other government information. How would you assess right now the seriousness of this, and particularly, can you tell us anything about ministries or other elements of the Iraqi government that the translators ought to be concerned about? Director Blair. Senator Wyden, I know the threat to translators is real. I have friends from the armed forces who personally took steps to get translators out of Iraq because it was so dangerous to them. The overall situation is much better now. I was not aware of the particular problem of Iraqi government records being a potential source to identify them, which could be used as the basis for making attacks on them. I'll have to take a look into that and get back to you. But the general principle of making sure that those who helped us through providing translating services is the right one, and we need to help them. Senator Wyden. I'd appreciate a prompt answer on that, Director, because I am concerned about the possibility of these anti-American elements looking at yet other strategies to make life difficult for our translators. Director Blair. Right. Senator Wyden. These translators are performing a great service in terms of advancing American security in a very difficult arena, and I appreciate your interest. Let me ask you a question, if I could, now about Iran. Obviously members of this Committee are following the Iranian presidential election, and it's certainly my hope, I'm sure shared, that President Ahmadi-nejad gets replaced by a more stable and more rational individual. But of course in Iran, the president is not the commander in chief, and his influence over foreign policy is more limited than perhaps many political systems. Is it your view that a change in president would result in a significant shift in Iranian foreign policy? And let's start particularly with the prospect that a replacement of President Ahmadi-nejad would result in a shift in nuclear policy. Director Blair. Senator, I don't believe that a change of a single individual as president would change in and of itself a fundamental Iranian policy like development of nuclear weapons. I think that those decisions are taken by the groups around the Supreme Leader, which is more than one person. So I think that we can't put our hopes in Iran on great changes to their policy towards the United States based on the presidential election itself. Senator Wyden. I think you've touched on this, but what can you say in a public setting with respect to Iran's current support for Hamas and Hezbollah? And what does Iran get out of providing this support, in your judgment? Director Blair. I would say there are at least two motivations for Iran's support of these groups. One of them is to seize control of the resistance narrative within the Middle East as opposed to the peace narrative, which is what we and many others favor. Iran seeks to associate itself, even though it's Persian, with the Arab cause against Israel. It feels that will benefit its power in the region. And the second one is, fundamentally I think they don't like Israel, and anything that they can do to help somebody that's going against Israel is sort of good in their mind. So I would say those two things motivate them. Senator Wyden. I share your view. Madam Chair, thank you. Chairman Feinstein. Senator Rockefeller. Senator Rockefeller. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Two questions on China: When President Clinton was President, they obviously had the missile fire-over, and it turned out in fact that the missiles were empty. But that certainly didn't make any difference as far as the international community to find that out. One of the things I've always worried about--I've always been worried about is the fact that in the PLA, that these more senior generals, the ones who would have been responsible for what went on at that time, for example, are not being followed in their relative moderation by the younger PLA officers coming up--that they tend to be more nationalistic, more willing to take risks. And I'm interested in your view on that. Director Blair. I think that most of our evidence on that, Senator Rockefeller, is pretty incomplete and somewhat anecdotal. My personal experiences with--when I think of my personal experiences with junior officers and when I think of my discussions in China, I think that in general junior officers tend to be more aggressive and swashbuckling. They are definitely told to be ready to attack Taiwan, to fulfill the historic destiny of China, and when you train junior officers to go do a military job, they become enthusiastic about it. They put their heart into it. They want to do it. You know the saying that war is old men sending young men out to die, and the older men often, I think, tend to be a little more aware of the penalties and the dangers and perhaps are a bit conservative. So it's hard to say what will happen when these junior officers become more senior officers--get a little more seasoning, get the real responsibility, have to look the issues in the eye if you unloose the hordes. China is not a combat service. If you look at the junior officers in the United States armed forces, they know what war is. They've been out there. They've seen their buddies and their men die. They know that things happen that you're not planning on. The PLA officers don't see that. They do war games; they do exercises. Nobody bleeds and dies in exercises. So I think you have a valid concern that the younger generation of the PLA may not have as careful an appreciation of war as their senior officers. That being said, I do think that the overall leadership of China is a fairly careful, conservative group who recognize that China's primary problems are internal--social change, achieving enough economic prosperity that they can take care of their population and raise the standard of living. And I think they also think that you can't believe everything you hear from the armed forces, and if you have a more careful way, it's probably worth taking it. So I think within the leadership that actually makes decisions in China, there's a certain amount of care and caution, but I would not discount your observation about some of the junior military officers. Senator Rockefeller. The senior leader in China is not of the military. Director Blair. Is not what, sir? Senator Rockefeller. Is not of the military. Director Blair. Right. Senator Rockefeller. And that adds, I think, to the equation. I'm not quite sure how. Let me skip to India. It's amazing to me to read the book, written in 1947, ``Freedom at Midnight,'' and compare that to what's happening today and to look at the dynamics between India and Pakistan, Kashmir, the rest of it, at that time and the situation today. And I'm an optimist--I have to be an optimist. We all have to be optimists because we have to search for solutions. But it's really quite difficult, absent what we focus on, and that is, is India going to send a nuclear bomb towards Pakistan and Pakistan towards India? Maybe there will be military clashes. There have been for years in the Kashmir area. What it is in the makeup of those two countries that actually wants to find resolution, that wants to get along, I'm not sure where that is. Where do you see that? Is it because of the nuclear power thing? Does it go beyond that? Director Blair. I think there are a number of factors, Senator Rockefeller, that would perhaps change the attitude that was there in 1947. One certainly is the nuclear-- possession of nuclear weapons by both sides. There is no doubt that senior Pakistanis and Indians feel that a war between them that got out of hand and would result in tremendous devastation for both sides, far more than the issues in general in Kashmir that they're confronting over. I think also the violent extremism in the region of South Asia is changing attitudes, perhaps slowly, in Pakistan and in India. We talked a little bit about that earlier in this session and how Pakistan is realizing that this violent extremism can be a threat to them. The Indians too are becoming concerned about---- Senator Rockefeller. Let me interrupt you because of my time problem. If you look at virtually all of these countries across the world, outside of Europe and us perhaps, the thing that strikes you more than anything else is that over 50 percent of all of the populations are 25 or below, 20 or below, 14 or below, and therefore have neither any sense of history, any sort of sense of the future, any sense of a coherent pattern within their own lives, and that is a destabilizing factor. Now, that doesn't just apply to Pakistan and India, but I wonder if you would comment just on the age factor and the future of radicalism in really the world. Director Blair. I've looked at some of the academic research on it, and, Senator, there are far more questions than there are answers, and it would not be useful for me to talk about it at that time. But it's sort of one of those--it's something big out there; we just don't know which way it's going to cut, and we ought to be working on it and thinking about it some more. Senator Rockefeller. I'll be back in a second round. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Chairman Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator. Senator Bayh? Senator Bayh. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Director. I'm going to try and move fairly quickly. I had several questions I wanted to ask in a limited amount of time. You're fresh to the job, two weeks, as you mentioned, and sometimes first impressions can offer some insights--someone coming into an organization new--a new set of eyes to some problems, so I'm going to ask you three quick questions about this. And since this is an open hearing, we're essentially talking to the American people. I've been struck since my service on this Committee by how much we don't know about some of the major challenges to our national security. And that puts leaders like the President and yourself in positions of making life-and-death decisions on the basis of imperfect knowledge or gaps in the knowledge. So I'm interested in your initial impression after the first two weeks about just how much we know about the threats to our national security. I would put it to you this way. On a scale of one to 100, with 100 being perfect clairvoyance and one being cluelessness, how would you rate our capacity to assess the threats that we face? Director Blair. Senator, based on 10 days of hard work and a little bit of thought around the edges, I'm pretty confident that we have a general idea of what threats, opportunities and trends are. What we can only do, in a prioritized and spotty way, is really drill down into that issue to get the real tactical-level details---- Senator Bayh. So your answer is, it's pretty good. Director Blair. I'd say in general it's pretty good. Senator Bayh. Where would the most significant gaps be? Director Blair. I'd say the most significant gaps are in the areas that are not traditional state threats, that we have not figured out the right way to collect information and we have not grown the analysts to do it. I'm thinking of Senator Bond's energy security. We understand a lot of it, but we don't understand the detail that we should in order to be able to make very precise recommendations. I'm thinking of things like some of the---- Senator Bayh. So we're better with nation states, with the possible exception of North Korea and some aspects of Iran. We're not as good with non-state actors. Director Blair. We can take a nation state apart if we put the resources on it. Senator Bayh. What's your initial assessment of the structure that was adopted in the wake of 9/11? You've been there 10 days; it may be too soon, but I'm interested in your first impression. You know, we created the directorship. The CIA Director is now different. Is it your initial impression that that is a useful structure? Should we contemplate combining those two missions going forward? I mean, do we have more coordination, or have we added another level of bureaucracy or some of each? How would you net that out so far? Director Blair. I think we have more coordination, Senator, with more to go. It still requires top-down pressure to achieve integrated operation in many areas. It doesn't come naturally to some of the---- Senator Bayh. So your initial impression is the new structure has been a positive. Director Blair. Has been a positive. Senator Bayh. Now, some people suggest possibly combining the two functions in one human being, but your initial impression is that the division is, on a net basis, a better structure. Director Blair. You mean go back to the old Director of CIA as Director of Central Intelligence, that one? Senator Bayh. And it also has the coordinating function with a little more heft than was previously the case. Director Blair. It's interesting; I talked to a previous Director who had both jobs, when it was, and he said, I don't know how I did them both. They're two separate jobs. They should be done separately. And my first impression is I tend to agree with him, but I'll be talking about that. Senator Bayh. Do you get along pretty well with Secretary Gates? Director Blair. Yes, sir. Senator Bayh. My impression is a lot of this has to do with who the personalities are and how well they get along, as much as it does with the structure. Well, thank you for your initial impressions. Just a couple more things. There are published reports from time to time about the timeline for when Iran would have a weapon capability. To the extent you're allowed to talk about such things--and the Israelis seem to have a little more aggressive timeline than has been published with regard to us--can you give the American people any indication about what timeframe we're looking at here, with having to confront that event? Director Blair. Yes, sir, I could say that if Iran pursued its centrifuge uranium technology, they could have a weapon as early as 2010, but it might take them until 2015. Senator Bayh. So that's next year--possibly as soon as next year. Director Blair. It's possibly as soon as next year. Senator Bayh. And they just launched a satellite, if I'm not incorrect, so they're clearly working on their missile capabilities. Director Blair. There's a missile that will carry it, and you don't need a missile to carry it. Senator Bayh. So in your opinion, Director, any combination of carrots and sticks we could use to dissuade them from seeking a military capability, or is that just a strategic decision they've made that they're going to pursue? Director Blair. We have seen in the past that international scrutiny and sticks have made changes in their behavior, in pieces of it. They have not---- Senator Bayh. Has the lower price of oil made them more vulnerable at this moment, so possibly sticks might be have a little bit more impact? Director Blair. I think that the lower price of oil has an effect. I think it has to be more comprehensive, though. The economic penalty that they would pay would have to be more comprehensive in order to really be a stick that would have an effect. Senator Bayh. Well, they are somewhat vulnerable to imports of energy. My last question--I've got about a minute left here--there was a published report in the last couple of days to the effect that the Pakistani government has been more cooperative in dealing with al-Qa'ida in the tribal areas. They view them as foreigners that are disruptive. They've not been as cooperative with regard to rooting out the Taliban, particularly in the city of Quetta--I hope I pronounced that correctly--because they know that we're going to be leaving Afghanistan at some point in time and they view the Taliban as not only some leverage within Afghanistan but also possibly as a counterbalance to India. Is that your initial impression as well, that they have not been cooperative in dealing with Taliban, particularly the leaders who possibly are headquartered in the Pakistani city I just mentioned? Director Blair. I'd rather go into specifics in closed session, Senator, but the overall idea of the unevenness of Pakistani cooperation is correct. Senator Bayh. Director, thank you. Chairman Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Bayh. Senator Hatch is not here. Senator Mikulski is here. Senator Mikulski. Director Blair, first of all, welcome. We're very pleased regarding your confirmation. I think we're very fortunate that you've chosen to come back to government service. And I think we share with you your compliments to the men and women who work in our intelligence services, both abroad and also here within our own country. The fact that we haven't had an attack in seven-and-a-half years is a tribute to them. Let me go right to my questions. One goes to Iran. Like Senator Bayh, I'll do some quick ones. On February 3rd, Iran used its own rocket to launch a small communications satellite in orbit. They began this satellite some years ago, but they're only the ninth country in the world to have that ability, to put a rocket up--a satellite into space. The State Department calls it worrisome. What is your assessment of what that means, and do you believe that we need to, in addition to their nuclear capability, additionally be worried about their growing scientific and technical capability? Director Blair. Senator Mikulski, I think Iran's space launch demonstrated that they are mastering multistage missile technology, and that technology can be used for peaceful pursuits and it can be used for military pursuits. They have some smart scientists and good engineers. If they put resources on it, they can make a serious missile force. Senator Mikulski. Thank you. I also have another question about Egypt and the tunnels into Gaza, but I would like to keep that for a closed session. I'd like to go to the cyber threat, essentially which I think is a transnational threat. In your testimony, on page 38, you talk about how because our technology, our infotech technology is now increasingly designed and manufactured overseas, this in and of itself can present a threat. Could you elaborate on that? Director Blair. The the operating systems of virtually all equipment, whether it be communications or also military equipment, is partly embedded in the chips that are built into the system, and then it's partly the software that is handled through computers. And if you know where a particular chip is going and what it's going to be used for, and you have control of it for a while, you can doctor it for purposes that--you can help make it go stupid; you can destroy it. And so, clever adversaries, if they can get into that supply chain at various points, can affect the equipment that we use in our communications systems, in our military weapons systems, and elsewhere. So we just have to figure out ways to protect this all the way. Senator Mikulski. Well then, based on that, would you say that in terms of the cyber threat, where we often think a state-supported threat, a big country with big technology capability could target us, but are you saying that because of that--and also, further on in your testimony--that both organized crime and then individual kind of hackers for hire could pose threats to our critical infrastructure in some way or other? Director Blair. As far as technical capabilities go, I think either one of those groups could pose threats. In terms of motivation and why they do it, I think there are probably different factors at work. Criminals obviously have great incentive to go after financial networks and just earn money. Hackers seem to take a joy in strange ways--watching lights go out, funny things on screens. They seem to do it for reasons that are hard to figure out. I think the technical fixes and the sort of cooperation are sort of similar to stop all those kinds of threats. Senator Mikulski. Well, as I understand it, General Jones at the National Security Council has asked Melissa Hathaway to do a 60-day review of our cyber security situation. And I know the Chairwoman has delayed our hearing on cyber security, our classified one. And we hope to really probe into this because I think this is one of these threats that is an invisible threat, and then, wham, it could have serious consequences. Let me get into one other area, though, before my time is up, and it goes to the Bayh question, what did you find in your first 10 days? What I see--and I wanted your reaction--is in this year's threat, world threat assessment, there is a growing emphasis once again on narcotics. Narcotics seem to be an insidious evil that has many tentacles that could undermine the United States of America or our efforts. Look at Mexico. We all know of the terrible death of a general in Cancun. Cancun is now being guarded. Afghanistan--corruption seems to go up to the highest levels, and we're going to be asked to send troops essentially to defend their corrupt situation. Is it one of your surprises in your return to government in the 10 days the growing issues around narcotics, and do you see kind of expanding our counternarcotics effort because it has such an insidious and undermining effect on us? Director Blair. I think it's gotten worse in the time that I've been out of government, and the effect on--I mean, we all know the human tragedy of drugs within the country--blasted lives and crime and so on. The international effects of it, though, I think have been worse in the last dozen years in the areas that you mention. So it is one of the things that I think has gone the wrong direction. Senator Mikulski. Thank you. Thank you very much. Chairman Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator. Senator Chambliss is not here. Senator Nelson is not here. Senator Whitehouse? Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. Welcome back, Admiral. It doesn't seem like very long since you were last here. We don't let you get away far. You note in your testimony the importance of keeping up pressure on al-Qa'ida in the Federal Administered Tribal Areas. Not too long ago Senator Snowe and I traveled to Eastern Afghanistan, right adjacent to the FATA, and over and over again in the different briefings we received, the problem of the border came up. To the Talibani syndicates operating in that area and to al-Qa'ida, it matters not at all. It does not enter their calculations. It is a zero factor. But for us and for the legitimate governments on either side, it is a considerable impediment to working in a concerted way to address that problem. I was briefed by our military commanders about the establishment of the border coordination centers, which would be trilateral--U.S., Afghan and Pakistan. Only one is up. We didn't have the chance to have a look at it and see how effective it is. Others are under way. It strikes me that, given the importance of this threat in that area, given the significance of the disability that the border presents to our efforts, that these border coordination centers should be a very high matter of national priority. Now, I understand that they raise a whole variety of issues, including how do you make sure that the Afghan and Pakistani participation in those coordination centers is secure and doesn't compromise important information? And that's a difficult problem, but it doesn't seem to me that it's an insoluble problem. I'd like to hear how high a priority you think those are and what you think we can do to accelerate that strategy, because in theory we should be able to be operating in real syncopation on one side and the other, driving them over the border and catching them on the other side, and that capability doesn't really seem to be established yet. Director Blair. Senator, I agree with you. In theory, we ought to be able to run a seamless operation. The trouble is that our partners on those two sides of the borders have quite different capabilities, motivations and willingness to work with us. So in fact what you find is you have to deal differently with your partners on one side of the border from that on the other. There's no doubt that the solution to the area has got to be something that goes across borders. Afghanistan can never be secure if the Pakistan FATA area is not. And an international effort beefed up in Afghanistan is not going to be successful unless there's addressal from Pakistan. And in fact the Administration review that's going on now is an Afghanistan- Pakistan review and, as you know, Special Representative Holbrooke's responsibility goes across both areas. We talked about those border posts. I'm certainly for them in theory. I just haven't had time to see whether from a practical point of view they are fulfilling the potential that we both think they should have. And if we don't do it that way, we've got to do it some way in order to use our intelligence capabilities to have the Pakistanis enforcing law and order on their side of the border and dealing with the insurgents on the Taliban side too. So we'll continue to push it. Senator Whitehouse. To the extent that if we don't do it that way, we have to do it some way, to paraphrase what you said, I'm not aware of any other some way, which is one of the reasons I'm focusing on these particular centers. If you can say it in an open session like that, do you have something else in mind when you're---- Director Blair. Well, if we could get a---- Senator Whitehouse. Do you have to do it some way other than this? Director Blair. If we could get a full-up intelligence- sharing arrangement with the Pakistan armed forces that would sort of work through the Pakistani army from the center out, that would be another way to do it rather than putting our effort on the border in the local situation. We could empower Pakistan units in the counterinsurgency operations that they are conducting. That's really what I had in mind in terms of the alternative. Senator Whitehouse. Yes. I agree with you. I think it's actually not necessary to be physically located there, so long as the goals of trilateral participation and quick response and ability to effectively marshal our assets on both sides of the border are met. Director Blair. Right. And not allowing the bad guys to go over an artificial line and thumb their noses at us because nothing will happen on the other side of the line. Senator Whitehouse. Yes. Director Blair. That's the objective. Yes, sir. Senator Whitehouse. Precisely. This is almost a philosophical question, and it touches on what America is and what it should be and all of that. But if, hypothetically, Americans had done something that was truly horrible and was classified deeply secret and you were faced with the choice of whether to, to some extent, confess it in order to correct it versus keeping it deeply classified in order to avoid the reputational harm that might ensue, how would you analyze that question, and what are the principles or the priorities that you would bring to bear on it? Director Blair. I believe in my bones that the United States acts lawfully and legally when it does it right. I think that the combination of the laws that are passed, the training of the people we have in the executive branch--we have a solid legal and moral foundation for what we do, even in areas that involve killing people like the armed forces and the things that we do in the intelligence services. Therefore, I believe that if something terrible were done, it would be done by somebody who had broken the laws and the procedures and the training that we'd given them, and that person should be held to account for it. Senator Whitehouse. My time has expired. Thank you, Admiral. Thank you, Chairman. Chairman Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator. Senator Snowe is not here. Senator Feingold, you're next. Senator Feingold. I thank the Chair. Thank you, sir. In your opening statement you stated that terrorist threats to U.S. interests in the Horn of Africa are increasing. And you also indicated that U.S. counterterrorism efforts there will be challenged by the ``high profile U.S. role in the region and the perception that this constitutes foreign intervention in Somalia.'' But the problem, as I've long seen it, is that the U.S. role is not that it's too high profile; in most respects, I think our engagement has been really grossly insufficient. But to the extent there is a perception that we support foreign intervention, isn't that based in part on our association with Ethiopia's actual intervention? Director Blair. Certainly the Ethiopians weren't very popular in Somalia, and the perception that anybody was helping them wasn't popular there. Yes, sir, that's true. I think my remarks were referring more to the--you're more familiar than I am with the legacy in Africa, and the experience with the attempt to establish Africa Command I think was instructive in that regard. I think most American military people thought that was a helpful thing and most African--many African countries of course thought that this was a secret plan for a military-dominated policy in ways that had hurt them before. So I think that we don't always take our actions in a way that makes them achieve their goals. Senator Feingold. Okay. But specifically on this issue of Somalia and Ethiopia, I take it you're indicating that the perception would certainly be by many in Somalia that we were pretty deeply associated with the Ethiopian intervention. Is that correct? Director Blair. As I'm thinking about that question, I'm not sure I know enough to answer that correctly. I think our policy in Somalia was not very coherent in the past few years with all of the turmoil and the warlord fighting. Senator Feingold. Well, that's for sure. That's a given. My question is, what is the perception of what our role was vis-a- vis Ethiopia's intervention. My guess is and belief is that they think it was--what the facts are is one thing---- Director Blair. Oh, I see. Right. Senator Feingold [continuing]. But the perception is that we were deeply involved. Is that something that you would agree with? Director Blair. I don't know. I don't know. I'd have to get back to you. Senator Feingold. Okay. We'll move on. If we're to overcome these challenges to our counterterrorism efforts, doesn't it make sense--and you're alluding to this already--to develop a strategy that strengthens diplomatic, humanitarian and other aspects of our policies that are not perceived as foreign intervention? Director Blair. Yes. Senator Feingold. And I'd like to repeat that really almost stunning sentence with which you opened your statement. You said, ``The primary near-term security concern of the United States is the global economic crisis and its geopolitical implication.'' And then you went on to describe how the crisis is already destabilizing some countries, with more to come. So do you think we're well positioned right now to monitor around the world the effects of this crisis and the ways it will damage our national security? Is the intelligence community positioned to anticipate, for example, when a government's going to fall, when a government's going to turn against us, or that it would in some cases simply lack the resources needed to work with us on issues of mutual concern? Director Blair. Senator, I think we'll be able to have some warning of these economic difficulties turning into real political difficulties. I think my placement of the economic crisis at the head of the list is formed by my thinking that in recent years it seems that we've had more security problems from failed states, from states that have been in trouble, than we have from strong states that have been an adversary to us in the traditional way. It seems that when you have states that are on the feather edge of being able to get a grip on law and order and economic development and so on, if that is knocked off course by economic difficulties, by the ethnic/sectarian/tribal rivalries takeover--and I just think if you look at the numbers, there are a lot of states who were barely keeping up with the sort of six percent growth in Africa, with the overall couple of percent growth in the world, and when those growth rates go down, my gut tells me that there are going to be problems coming out of that. And we are looking for that to see what it will be, and it seems that those areas are what have caused us the most problems in recent years. Senator Feingold. I understand you've already indicated this in response to some questions from Senator Bayh, and all I can say is I couldn't agree with you more. This is absolutely an essential understanding of what the threats are, is that these are the places where we really, really are going to have problems if we don't anticipate it. So I thank you for reiterating that. I think part of the lesson here is that we have to be prepared to anticipate the crises before they happen and not constantly being in a reactive mode. And Mr. Panetta testified at his confirmation hearing that he was concerned that we aren't allocating enough resources to the countries and regions that the intelligence community has already assessed or where our ``primary near-term security concern'' is taking place. Mr. Panetta also committed to conducting a review of CIA operations and resources to make sure that we have a global focus and are considering long-term and emerging threats. As DNI, will you commit to undertaking an intelligence community- wide review along these lines? Director Blair. I think that's a very good idea to do that, Yes, sir. Senator Feingold. Another lesson is that anticipating and tracking complex, multi-faceted issues--like the impact of economic crises and instability--and the likelihood of a particular region of the world becoming a terrorist safehaven requires a combination of clandestine collection and diplomatic and other overt reporting. Director Blair, do you agree? And, if so, how do we go about prepositioning all of our government's eyes and ears, both clandestine and overt, so that we're not being caught flat-footed? Director Blair. I think that the clandestine side of it probably is the more difficult. There are a great number of sensors out there in nongovernmental organizations, travelers, businessmen in the open-source intelligence. So, we can get, I think, a good general idea of what's going on in troubled areas without having agents there. But then, to get behind that, into the motivations of the criminal leaders and other leaders who are taking advantage of the situation for their own things, I find that that's where the open- source intelligence stops. That's where you have to get people on the ground; you have to bring signals intelligence to bear. And then, frankly, one of our collection difficulties is trying to move that spotlight around so it is on the right places. We can't cover everything to the depth that we would like and we need to make good choices. Senator Feingold. And then even when we are able to cover things, somehow we have to put together the clandestine and overt information in a coordinated way. And in this regard, I mentioned to you before, this Committee passed legislation last Congress creating an independent commission to study this problem and make recommendations. So, I hope you'll work with me in getting this commission in place, because the sooner we do it, the better we'll be able to get ahead of these crises. My time's up. I apologize. Chairman Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator. We could have a brief second round, if that's agreeable to you. Director Blair. Sure. Yes, ma'am. Chairman Feinstein. The country that hasn't been discussed, that I think is a very important fulcrum in all of this, is Russia--Russia under Medvedev and Russia under Putin; and where is that country going; and can it become a dependable partner for the United States? It seems to me that there's a situation where virtually anything that happens seems to rub Russia the wrong way. And yet what we need is a real partner in nuclear nonproliferation, in counterterrorism. How do you see this relationship at the present time, and what would you advise American policy be to improve it? Director Blair. I think the economic crisis is probably causing Russia to do some reconsidering. They've been on a roll for the past 10 years or so, with oil revenues and other revenues. That, combined with a, sort of, reassertion of Russia prerogatives in the world has made the government enormously popular and given them a free hand to continue that. But the social contract they struck was continued economic prosperity and a good strong Russia, in return for pretty sharp limitations on personal freedom. That contract is fraying now, I think, with the global economic prices--the price of oil going down; we've already seen demonstrations in Russia. I don't think their regime is threatening right now, but they show popular discontent being right under surface if the Russian government can't deliver the economic goods that have been a strong basis of their popularity. So, I think Russian has to rethink what it's doing. As far as its overseas policy goes, I think that Russia has--a certain self-image it's projecting. But, I also think that they have specific interests that they view, and that there may be areas--and I would advise this to policymakers-- that we can find a match between what Russia wants and what the United States wants. I'm disappointed, frankly, in the Russian role in the Manas base negotiations in Kyrgyzstan. It appears that Russia is not playing a helpful role, even though, in general, Russia believes that the United States' role in Afghanistan and in dealing with the terrorism in the country is to their good too, because they face, of course, Sunni violent extremism in their Southern areas. So Russia has a certain amount of ambivalence. They don't mind poking a stick in our eye if they can, but they do, I think, recognize that there are some things that we see together. On Iran, Russia does not want a nuclear-armed Iran, but it also would like some other things from Iran. So you see this ambivalence in Russian approaches to individual issues. And where there's ambivalence, perhaps there's a chance to work out some deals. So, I think we have to explore that. Chairman Feinstein. As I look at it, if you look at just the geopolitics of the big, large powerful nations--Russia, China, India, the United States, the European community--it seems to me that the asymmetric nations of the world, and the potential threat from this asymmetric nature of the world today should bring those big nations together. Instead, we always get tripped up. There was the Georgia escapade--and I don't know if you've had a chance to look at that as to if there is blame, where that blame rests, in terms of beginning that; and what are the chain of dominos, if any, that it has unleashed. Would you care to comment on that part of the equation? Director Blair. I haven't had a chance yet, Madam Chairman, to sort of go back over how that crisis came off. But, I agree with you that there are many areas in which the interests of the large countries run very much together. And I think, to the extent that they feel that those are really strong interests that really threaten them, you get a higher level of cooperation than when they think that they can be, sort of, played also to gain some advantage, at the same time you're getting enough protection for yourself that you're satisfying national needs. But, I think we should probe that with Russia, as we should with the other countries that you mentioned, and keep our hedges up so that if things turn out badly we can cover our own interests, but look for these areas. Chairman Feinstein. Would you care to put on the record where the main cyber threats to the United States--what two countries they are coming from? Director Blair. I can tell you, in terms of capability, that Russia and China--and I'm talking both military and civilian hackers who may be hired by crime or may be motivated--they're right up there at top of the list. Chairman Feinstein. Do you see any nexus between the Russian organized crime, cyber networks, and the government? Director Blair. I'd rather not answer that in this session, Madam Chairman. Chairman Feinstein. Okay, fair enough. It would be fair to say, then, that the great bulk of the cyber intrusions are coming either from China or from Russia? Director Blair. They're coming from Internet Protocol addresses in those countries. As you know, you can bounce around to disguise where you're coming from, but a large portion of them are coming out of IP addresses in China and in Russia. Chairman Feinstein. Well, where I'm going with this is, we know that we are going to be looking at cyber in some detail on this Committee---- Director Blair. Right. Chairman Feinstein [continuing]. And yet it seems to me that, other than the intelligence world, there is a very real policy gap out here where the diplomatic world needs to step in. And when things happen, countries need to get demarched, as opposed to keeping all of this under wraps so that all one does is build one's own technology to get closer and closer to cyber warfare. Candidly, I am not interested in doing that. I am interested in holding countries responsible for the behavior of their entities. And I think it's a much more responsible course in the long-run if you have American policymakers heavily engaged with their counterparts in other countries, driving toward international treaties and agreements which prevent cyber intrusions which could result one day, if left unaddressed, in a cyber war. Director Blair. I agree that if we could develop some sort of a code of conduct and approach that the major nations agreed on to cyber space, the fact that we have--although somewhat imperfectly--in the high seas maritime regime, we have a little bit of in the space regime in which everybody recognizes that if we turn the offense loose in these areas, it's to all of our disadvantage, that would be in the interest of all of us. And it would apply some regulation to these activities more at the source than having to deal with it the way we do now. Chairman Feinstein. Thank you very much. Mr. Vice Chairman. Vice Chairman Bond. Mr. Director, I want to go back to that in just a moment, but some of the questions that have been raised brings me back to the statement for the record, which began: ``The primary near-term security concern of the United States is the global economic crisis, regime-threatening instability, increased nationalism, Caribbean refuge flows'', and certainly, I'm very much concerned about protectionist policies, Asian refugees, instability and other things. And I believe we have to get the toxic debt out of the credit markets to solve that, but when it comes to the focus of the intelligence community, we've got threats from terrorism, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the threat posed by Iran's pursuit of nuclear capability, and the Middle East crisis. Now, I hope you don't mean by that that the primary focus of the intelligence community is going to be on finding out what you recently described as readily observable and open- source information on the conditions of the country. The primary emphasis of the IC, I would think--from the great bulk of questions and answers here--has got to be on these current threats that we face, does it not? Director Blair. Mr. Vice Chairman, I was not making a statement about what we would turn our collection capabilities--which are designed for various purposes--to. My intent in drawing attention to the economic crisis was more to inform policy of the things that could really cause real problems for the United States if they developed a certain way. But I won't be turning satellites to look at GDP accounts. Vice Chairman Bond. Well, I think a number of people had a concern about that, because what the intelligence community-- and we discussed the long-term concerns about getting adequate energy intelligence, something that I think the IC is uniquely capable of doing, which is not available in open source. But I wanted to make sure the emphasis was going to continue to be on these threats that I think most of us have described. Director Blair. Yes, sir. And I was trying to act as your intelligence officer for the Senate, not necessarily in the Intelligence Committee, but as members of the body that has to make big decisions for American policy in the future. And I just think that what the Senate ought to be worrying about is the economic crisis. Vice Chairman Bond. That's something we need to get right and I'll have some comments on TARP later. Director Blair. Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Bond. You've mentioned the problem dealing with cyber attacks from major state actors. And I think the Chair has rightly pointed out that this needs to be a higher- level executive, diplomatic exchange. How are we able--or are we able--to prosecute suspected espionage cases or attacks? Do we have any ability to go after those who perpetrate cyber invasions either for the purpose of acquiring information or for the purpose of degrading or destroying our system? Do we have any means of going after those? Director Blair. This is such a new area that I'd really like to have most of the discussion in closed session. There are some things we can talk about---- Vice Chairman Bond. All right. Director Blair. About how you--there have been things in this country--finding a hacker, being able to zero in on a person and determine who it is. When you get into more sophisticated attacks that are across continents and through firewalls and so on, you get into some pretty fancy---- Vice Chairman Bond. It's very difficult, in other words. Director Blair. Technically and legally and I'd rather discuss those with you in a closed session, if I could, Mr. Vice Chairman. Vice Chairman Bond. One of the questions about China, we all know that it reportedly spent $59 billion in 2008 on its military forces--a significant increase. What impact, if any, does this have on our strategic relationship with Taiwan? And do you see a long-term threat to the United States from this increased budget by China? Director Blair. As China does increase its military expenditure, it does pose a greater threat to Taiwan, Mr. Vice Chairman. And unless Taiwan does something about it--and we're really the only other country helping them do it--that means we're going to have to help them some more in order to maintain a balance so that China's military might won't turn into coercive capability or military capability. So it does have an effect. As far as an effect on the United States, it really depends on how China uses that military power. Right now they've sent a couple of ships to participate in piracy patrols off Somalia. That's a good thing. More is better of that kind of thing. If they turn extended naval power into trying to coerce other small countries in that area of the world, that's a bad thing and we would take an entirely different thing to it. So it kind of depends. Vice Chairman Bond. Let me jump just very quickly to another areas. Recent reports describe several Yemeni Gitmo detainees who have been released from Saudi rehabilitation who returned to terrorism. What is your assessment of threat to U.S. interests from al-Qa'ida and affiliated groups in Yemen? And what is the recidivism rate for released Gitmo detainees? Director Blair. I'm hesitating because I can't remember what the classification level is. There is a recidivism rate of the entire Saudi program. There is a somewhat higher recidivism rate of those from Guantanamo who've been brought back. And the Saudis are increasing their efforts, because they see the same problem that we do. I can give you the number in closed session, but it is not a 100 percent foolproof program, although we give high marks to the Saudis in general for the efforts they are making in reeducation and in taking--not only punitive, but also these rehabilitation efforts. It's making a difference. Vice Chairman Bond. Thank you, Mr. Director. Chairman Feinstein. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. Senator Rockefeller. Senator Rockefeller. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm going to ask you a very different kind of question, but one which I think has enormous consequences both in this country and across the world--or you may disagree. At last year's global threats hearing, I asked General Hayden a question about the Army Field Manual standards for interrogation. And in the course of the discussion that followed, he revealed publicly that we've waterboarded three al-Qa'ida terrorists. For too many people in our government, and in my judgment in our country, there's a mistaken impression that waterboarding is what has to be done to get actionable intelligence to keep America safe. It's not. It's torture. And the great majority of the interrogation community believes that's not the best way to get actionable intelligence in the first place. It's already done great damage to our national security, both as a poor interrogation tool and as a boon to terrorist recruitment worldwide. So I want to ask you about the threat that this misunderstanding poses to our national security. Two years ago, Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, the dean of West Point, took several military and FBI interrogators to try to convince the producers of this TV show ``24'' not to glorify torture, because it was having a toxic effect on cadets' training and ethics. So my questions are as follows: How does this misunderstanding about torture affect our most valuable national security resources--the young men and women who volunteer to service in the military or the intelligence agencies? Do they believe that Jack Bauer is what a good intelligence agent is supposed to act like? I'll ask a few more: The Hollywood producer of ``24,'' one Joel Surnow, is celebrated in some circles--most circles--for the show's depiction of the tough choices that have to be made in the war on terrorism. Justice Scalia has cited Jack Bauer's torture of terrorist suspects, and our former Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, said of the show, ``Frankly, it reflects real life.'' In your decades of service to our nation's security, would you say that this TV show reflects real life? Director Blair. I've never seen an episode of that show, Senator, so I can't help you. Senator Rockefeller. That's a copout. That's a copout. Director Blair. It happens to be true. Senator Rockefeller. I understand that. Director Blair. But on the general point, no. We don't want to--I mean, I can tell you my leadership and the leadership that I admire in the armed forces and the intelligence services does not believe that you have to be tough and mean to do a good job for your country. You have to be following the traditions of your service. You have to follow America's ideals while you're getting the job done. You have to act lawfully. Those are the leaders that most of us admire, and that's my experience of what most of the leaders are. We don't glorify torture and killing, and there won't be torture on my watch. Senator Rockefeller. And I understand that. But on their watch, they have it regularly, and it's the most popular TV show in America. I simply raise that as a question of how what's going on can be used for money-making purposes, and in the process not only affect young people in our country and how they approach, potentially, public service in the intelligence community or elsewhere, as well as the Muslim world. It worries me greatly. It's one television show, and it worries me greatly. Director Blair. American popular culture is sometimes our worst enemy overseas, isn't it, Senator Rockefeller? I have traveled, and everybody thinks that America is about some of these shows that are made as violent and as lurid as they can be so that they will up their ratings. I don't think that reflects the real America. I don't think that's who we are. I don't think that's who we want to be, and I think it's a bad reflection of what this country is really about. Senator Rockefeller. I'll send you a copy. Director Blair. All right. Senator Rockefeller. Thank you, sir. Vice Chairman Bond. [Presiding] Thank you, Senator Rockefeller. Senator Whitehouse. Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Vice Chairman. There have been a great number of questions this afternoon about our cyber security probelms. Director Blair. Good. Good. Senator Whitehouse. Those have been pursued--there have been some very deeply classified elements to the way in which we have begun to address the cyber security problem. It also raises issues about privacy. It raises issues about civil liberties. It raises issues about domestic wiretapping and so forth. And it strikes me that in order to address those issues and enjoy public confidence that those issues have been adequately addressed, then very significant aspects of the way in which we address cyber terrorism have to be brought out from behind the dark screen of classification. We have to have some public debate and discussion over these issues. We have to open up the scope of people who are given access to some of the classified functions. And I'm wondering if you have given any thought to how one might go about doing that. It's almost unfair to ask you, if you've been in office all of two weeks, but it strikes me that this is an issue that it's worth starting to grapple with, particularly if, as the current plan proceeds, it passes decision points that should be informed by that kind of a discussion. Director Blair. I've given thought to that, Senator Whitehouse, and in fact those exact concerns are central in this review we're conducting. I'm not sure that the technical answers for privacy will be much different from what we know now. But if we are to be able to apply these technical answers in this complex, interrelated infospace that is the reality of modern communications, the American people have to have confidence that they are being applied in a way that respects privacy and civil liberties. I think just a couple of points that will be an advantage. Number one, since all these things have to be done at cyber speed--blocking attacks, cleansing places--the algorithms to do that have to be written ahead of time and be in place. So in the writing of the algorithms, you can take into account the sorts of concerns that we're talking about and they can be reviewed by civil liberties experts; they can be shown to Congress. They can be talked about, I think, in concept if not in particular so that people know that these are being set up in the right way. Then oversight is key--the monitoring of these so that you all and everyone else has confidence that if somehow some of these procedures break down or go wrong, there are ways to deal with it, they're fixed, and they're done in a way. So I think that we have to build these sorts of considerations into the structure of the equipment, and I think we can talk about that in a procedural and unclass way as long as we don't get into the code which detects a particular piece of malware so that somebody can design one that's better. So I think it's a challenge to us, especially because we're spies. You know, people don't trust us in general, so we have a further distance to go if the expertise that's developed for espionage that is used for these purposes. So we recognize that burden, and I think it's incumbent on us to do it that way. Senator Whitehouse. Well, given the brevity of your tenure and the complexity of the situation, I certainly do not begrudge you the 60 days. I'm delighted to hear that this is a part of that analysis that's taking place in that 60 days, and I look forward to being in touch with you again at the conclusion of your process. I appreciate it very much. Thank you, sir. Director Blair. Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Bond. Further questions from you, Senator Whitehouse, or Senator Rockefeller? [No response.] Vice Chairman Bond. I was just going to ask one last question. At last year's threat hearing, Director Hayden was asked about restricting governmental interrogations to those outlined in the Army Field Manual. He responded there is a universe of lawful interrogations that we have a right to use, and the Army Field Manual listing is only a subset but do not consist of all lawful interrogation tools. Have you had the opportunity to review that question and determine whether there is an area to use techniques beyond the Army Field Manual and whether that might be necessary for high value detainees? Director Blair. We are, Senator Bond--and I remember you and I had this conversation in the confirmation hearing and all--and the task forces which have been set up by the executive orders that we discussed are now in existence. And we are not only looking at that exact universe of interrogation techniques. we are trying to bring in some more science and research in that area so we can determine what is the best and most effective way to get the information that we need. So we are looking at it with a pretty open aperture, but the principles that we discussed of having a single manual, but not one which is a training manual for our adversaries, are very much in our mind also. So we're started down that road, and everything you and I discussed is still in play. Vice Chairman Bond. Well, we'll look forward to hearing your conclusions, Mr. Director. I'm sure I could ask you a lot more questions, but I appreciate your participation in the hearing, and I think it's about that time. On behalf of the Chair, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 4:35 p.m., the Committee adjourned.]

Committee Leadership

Tom Cotton

Mark Warner

All Committee Members

Recent Legislation Activity

Hearings & Meetings

Reports & Publications

Committee Resources