the post of Director of Central Intelligence. May I first, however, thank Senator Stevenson for his very kind words, and Senator Percy for his in absentia.

I would like to start by noting that governments, no less than any of us as individuals, depend upon accurate and timely information to make decisions. The collection, the evaluation, the dissemination of information to protect our national security, and upon which to base the foreign policy, is essential for any sovereign state. And in this day when our state has such international responsibilities, a good intelligence collection organization is absolutely vital.

Today, however, we are in an era of effort to reduce international tensions, and in this era, the United States, in my opinion, needs an organization for intelligence of high quality and responsiveness perhaps more than any other time. The Congress itself has recognized the fact that the success of our ongoing negotiations for SALT and MBFR may very well depend in part on our ability to verify that past agreements are in fact being carried out. Thus, our intelligence will be one factor in developing that mutual trust which will be essential to further progress in this important area. If our intelligence is faulty, we may misjudge; if it is inadequate, we may read the signals incorrectly. Without good intelligence, we may simply miss opportunities to insure the world of peace. I believe, then, that we must have the best intelligence agency in the world. I think we can do this and still be fully consistent with American values and law.

At the same time today that we are working toward international understanding, we are also witnessing the substantial investment of the Soviet Union in their military forces, whether their forces are larger or smaller than ours, stronger or weaker, better or poorer is a subject that could involve interminable debate. It does seem clear to me, however, that we are going to require all of the leverage which good intelligence can give to our military posture if we are going to remain adequately strong in the future.

However, today there are more than military requirements for intelligence. Our intelligence must be acutely aware of foreign political, economic, and social trends, as well as the military ones, and must be able to relate these in assessing the prospects for our future.

There is no doubt in my mind that we possess the capability to have the best of all intelligence services in all of these areas. To do that, though, we must insure that our intelligence resources are employed in an optimal manner.

In this connection, the President has within the last few days made it expressly clear to me that he expects the Director of Central Intelligence to be able to insure him that our total national intelligence effort is being conducted in accordance with established priorities and with minimal duplication of effort. He also wants to be certain that the foreign intelligence work of all agencies of our Government is being conducted strictly in accordance with law and with American values. The President indicated that while he believes that existing law and executive orders encompass these objectives, he intends to work closely with the Congress on any revisions of law or executive orders that may be desirable to assist the Director of Central Intelligence in fulfilling these charges.

I believe that we can adhere to the President's guidance for greater efficiency and responsiveness within full legality while simultaneously maintaining the individuality, the imaginative initiatives, and the independent voice of the various agencies of our national intelligence structure. I appreciate the importance of maintaining a degree of independence in our subordinate national intelligence activities, as well, of course, as in our tactical intelligence operations.

I have already discussed this question with the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense and know that we all approach it with open and cooperative minds. We all seek greater effectiveness and efficiency from better direction and coordination. We all abhor any thought of such a degree of centralization that alternative judgments cannot be heard, and uncertainties discussed.

Again, the President stated that he feels that the decisionmakers in Congress and in the executive branch will be better served if they all work from the same foundation of intelligence. This is not to say that consensus among the various elements of the community need be forced, or that dissenting opinion need be stifled. Contrary views must be presented, but in such a way that the rationale for such dissent is clearly evident.

In fact, were the Senate to confirm me for this position, I would look upon maintaining the objectivity which comes from considering divergent viewpoints as my highest priority. Objectivity benefits both the producer and the user of intelligence. The user obviously benefits because he is given all reasonable alternatives. As a frequent user of intelligence, I understand, I believe, the importance of approaching decisions with a range of choices in hand, not simply one option. I also believe that I am aware of the dangers to military planning and operations of intelligence estimates that are biased in one direction. The producer of intelligence also benefits from an emphasis on objectivity because he is not asked to sacrifice his intellectual or scientific integrity to support an established position, but rather, he is asked to lay out all sides of a case indicating the level of confidence he has in the deductions he makes from the facts at hand. Objectivity simply must continue to be the hallmark of our intelligence effort.

My second point of emphasis would be to insure that the work of the intelligence community is conducted lawfully. I believe with my deepest conviction, that the greatest strength we have as a world power is our moral dedication to the rights of the individual. If any part of our government is perceived to function outside of this fundamental American tenet, it can only bring discredit on the whole. I believe that it is the solemn duty of every agency of the U.S. Government to protect the constitutional rights of our citizens.

I also believe that there are valid national secrets and recognize that the Director of Central Intelligence is charged by law to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of intelligence sources and methods. Thus, though American citizens can rightfully expect their government to operate openly, there must be a relatively small amount of information and activity which is kept secret. As long as representative groups of elected officials such as this committee and the Chief Executive are kept informed, and as long as they can act for the society in regulating the secret information and activities, I think that the difficult

balance between necessary secrecy and an open, democratic society can be maintained.

From the discussions I have enjoyed over the past 212 weeks, it appears to me that this committee has taken great and successful strides in improving communications between the Congress and the intelligence community. I fully support this progress and philosophy. Within the limits of the constitutional prerogatives of the executive branch, I would intend to do my part in insuring that Congress remains a full and knowledgeable partner.

Similarly, I believe that it is incumbent upon the intelligence community to make a serious and continuing effort to avoid the overclassification of information and even to attempt selectively to publish unclassified information which is of high interest and value to our citizens.

Even though the various disclosures of questionable intelligence activities during the past several years were quite necessary, they have had an adverse impact on the reputation of our intelligence community. A third area of emphasis which I would suggest would be to continue to rebuild this reputation. The intelligence community is, by and large, composed of well-qualified, hard-working individuals who are as dedicated to our national ideals as are any of us. As in any organization, they need a clear understanding of what is expected of them, and a clear recognition of the importance of the work that they would do. I intend to make the realization of these goals my next highest priority should I be confirmed in this office.

To achieve this, we must continue the work of restoring confidence in the credibility of intelligence effort, and this can only be done by actions, not by words. Redundant programs, parochial causes, needless controversy within the community must be eliminated. Everyone's full effort must be turned to producing intelligence information and estimates of the highest quality. That product will measure our intelligence community's worth. And coupled with good communication with the Congress, maximum permissible disclosure to the public, we should be able to create that measure of confidence and credibility which is vital to a successful intelligence program.

There is much work ahead, and if I am confirmed by the Senate, I would be excited by the challenge. I have been in the service of our Nation for 30 years, and I view this appointment as another opportunity to continue that service in an area of special importance today. Since you have my biography, I would not want to detail further my experience in managing large organizations or in the analysis and rationalization of defense programs.

I would like to conclude simply by reiterating that I do respect the dedicated professionals in both our civilian and military components of the intelligence organizations. I hope to encourage them to realize their full capabilities, to be innovative, questioning and objective in their approach to all problems. At the same time, I believe that I also understand the need for honest, rigidly accurate intelligence assessments if they are to be useful to the Congress and to the President.

If I am confirmed, I would work to re-establish the full credibility of the community's work, to insure that a worthwhile contribution is made in support of our decisionmaking process, and to require that

the gathering and dissemination of intelligence for the United States is consistent with the ideals upon which this country was founded.

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed by the Senate, I would be proud to be the Director of Central Intelligence, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and to work closely with this committee in helping to provide this country with an intelligence service second to none. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Admiral Turner.

Before proceeding with the questioning by the committee, may I administer the oath, sir?

Admiral TURNER. Please.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Admiral TURNER. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, sir.

Because of the interest shown in this nomination, the Chair would like to once again institute the 10-minute rule, and so I will begin with the first 10 minutes.

Admiral Turner, as you know, one of the purposes of the creation of the CIA in 1947 was to insure that U.S. intelligence would be independent of military control.

Although the Department of Defense intelligence activities represent the largest part of the annual U.S. intelligence budget. I believe that purpose still continues, and so the question I ask, sir, is whether you might be able to better serve the intent of civilian control were you to resign your commission prior to becoming the Director of Central Intelligence?

How do you react to this issue, sir?

TESTIMONY OF ADM. STANSFIELD TURNER

Admiral TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I come to this nomination as an active military officer. The law provides that an active officer may serve as the Director of Central Intelligence. In fact there have been 11 military officers who have served either as Director or Deputy Director. Ten of them served while on active duty. Six of those ten returned to military service after completing their duty in Central Intelligence.

Having thoroughly enjoyed serving my country in active military service for 30 years, I am anxious not to foreclose the possibility I may follow in the footsteps of those six.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you perceive any conflict of interest in your serving with your commission?

Admiral TURNER. I do not, sir. To begin with, I am charged, or would be charged by law, not to accept any responsibility to or carry out any responsibility with the military services while serving as the Director of Central Intelligence, and I would intend to comply with that law, not only to the letter, but in its spirit.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you discussed this relationship with members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

Admiral TURNER. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Or with the Department of the Navy?

Admiral TURNER. I have discussed it with the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense. I believe that we have a thorough understanding, and I think that is the level to which I will be communicating with the Department of Defense primarily.

The CHAIRMAN. What are the thoughts of the President on this issue, sir?

Admiral TURNER. The President has told me that it is his strong desire that I remain on active duty.

The CHAIRMAN. If you retain your military commission while serving as the Director of Central Intelligence, your Deputy Director must be a civilian.

Do you have in mind as to who should be the Deputy Director? Admiral TURNER. I am very pleased with the incumbent Acting Director who came from the position of Deputy Director, but I would not feel it appropriate at this time, having such a short acquaintanceship with him and with the community, to commit myself irrevocably to maintain him in that position. But I am pleased with him and I would certainly want to consider him as a candidate, among others.

The CHAIRMAN. You are speaking of Mr. Knoche.

Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, as a senior ranking military officer, I believe you are entitled to personal staff. Do you intend to maintain this personal staff while serving as Director of Central Intelligence?

Admiral TURNER. I have asked the Chief of Naval Operations and obtained his permission to maintain four officers as a personal staff. The CHAIRMAN. And will these men be drawn from naval personnel?

Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Senate Resolution 400, the resolution that created this committee, expresses the sense of the Senate that the head of any department or agency of the United States involved in any intelligence activity should furnish any information or document in their possession, custody, or control whenever requested by this committee with respect to any matter within the committee's jurisdiction.

Do you intend to honor this request of the committee with regard to any information requested which is within the jurisdiction of this committee?

Admiral TURNER. Within the accepted prerogatives of the executive branch, I certainly intend to do that, and it is my pleasant impression that the arrangements that currently exist between this committee and the intelligence community are working well to the satisfaction of both the committee and the community, and I would pledge myself, sir, to continue that spirit of cooperation in every way.

The CHAIRMAN. I am glad you brought that up, and I would like to say publicly that as Chairman of this committee-and I believe I speak for the members of this committee-I have been extremely pleased with the cooperation that we have experienced with all of the agencies of the intelligence community. They have been most forthcoming and forthright and open with us, and I look forward to the same type of relationship with you, sir.

My first question on congressional oversight is related to whether you will honor our requests for information.