Senate Select Intelligence Committee Holds Hearing on Worldwide Threats to Intelligence Community

EDWARDS:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Director Tenet, I have seen reports that a new bin Laden tape will be broadcast today. Can you tell us first whether that's true? And second, what you know about it?

TENET:

I've seen—I heard that on the way in, sir. I don't know what the contents will be. We'll just have to wait and see
what is on this tape.

EDWARDS:

You have not seen the tape yourself?

TENET:

No, sir, I have not.

EDWARDS:

Nor have you received any reports about what is contained on the tape?

TENET:

Got some reports last night, sir, about the possibility that this would exist. But in preparing for today, I honestly have not spent any time looking at it. So we'll see whether it runs and what it sounds like.

EDWARDS:

Director Mueller, you and I have discussed the subject of the FBI's reform efforts and a fundamental disagreement that you and I have about this. Over 17 months, we have learned—and the American people have learned—about case after case where the FBI missed clues or failed to connect dots, ranging from a failure to follow up on the Phoenix memo to failing to get the Moussaoui computer to failing to track two of the hijackers who the FBI knew were in the United States.

And during that 17 months, since September 11th, the FBI obviously has had a chance to reform itself. As we have discussed, I don't believe the FBI has met that challenge. I think there are two fundamental reasons for that.
One is I think there is bureaucratic resistance within the FBI. The FBI is, by nature, a bureaucracy. There are people within the FBI who work to protect their own turf. And they resist change, which is the nature of a bureaucracy.

And second, I think the bureau is just the wrong agency to do intelligence work. I think there is a fundamental conflict between law enforcement and intelligence gathering. And law enforcement is about building criminal cases and putting people in jail and indicting people.

The FBI is clearly very good at law enforcement. There is no doubt about that. But law enforcement is not intelligence.

Intelligence isn't about building a case. It's about gathering information and putting it together and seeing how it fits into a bigger picture.

Now, as you know, I'm not the only one to reach this conclusion. There are many others. In fact, I believe all of the objective reviews have found that the FBI is not up to this task. Let me just quote some of them first.

The Markle Task Force, which was October of 2002 -- and I quote—said, "There is a resistance ingrained in the FBI ranks to sharing counterterrorism information. The FBI has not prioritized intelligence analysis in the areas of counterterrorism." End quote.

The Gilmore Commission, December of 2002 -- quote—"The bureau's longstanding tradition and organizational culture persuade us that, even with the best of intentions, the FBI cannot soon be made over into an organization dedicated to detecting and preventing attacks, rather than one dedicated to punishing them.

The joint congressional inquiry, the report came out in December: "The FBI has a history of repeated shortcomings within its current responsibility for domestic intelligence. The FBI should strengthen and improve its domestic capability as fully and expeditiously as possible by immediately instituting a variety of recommendations."

And finally, the Brookings Institution in January of this year said, "There are strong reasons to question whether the FBI is the right agency to conduct domestic intelligence collection and analysis."

My view, as I have expressed to you, is that the FBI's effort at reform is too little, too late. I also think, because of the nature of the FBI, that it will never be able to reform itself to do this job.

The "New York Times" reported from the second-ranking official at the bureau, this is November, November 21st, that he told field office chiefs in a memorandum that he was—I'm quoting him now—"amazed and astounded by the failure of some unidentified FBI field officers to commit essential resources and tools to the fight against terrorism."

I will introduce legislation this week. I'm going to give you an opportunity to respond. I will introduce legislation this week to take the domestic intelligence function out of the FBI and put it into a new agency. I think it will improve our ability to fight terrorism. I also think it will improve, because of the structure that I'm proposing, our ability to protect freedom and liberties here within our country.

I do want to ask you about . . .

ROBERTS:

The senator's time has expired.

EDWARDS:

I think we should give him a chance to respond.

ROBERTS:

I think that's pretty obvious. Let me just say to the distinguished senator, Senator Rockefeller and I have agreed that, prior to the budget hearings, the first hearing we will have will be on FBI reform. So the director can come before us and certainly tell his side of the story.

And I will now recognize the director to respond to the comments made by the senator.

MUELLER:

Senator, you have overlooked a great deal of the good work that the FBI has done in the last 17 months in
connecting the dots. You also, I think, have overlooked the capability of the bureau to collect facts, through investigations, through interrogations, as it has done for 90 years.

The only other point I would make, senator, is I have offered you an opportunity personally to come down to the bureau and be briefed on the changes that we have made since September 11th.

EDWARDS:

I would be happy to do that.

MUELLER:

You have declined to come down. And I asked you in particular, before you introduced the legislation, that you come down and see the changes we have made to augment the intelligence gathering capability of the bureau, both the gathering, as well as the analytical capability of the bureau.

So I ask you to do that before you submit that legislation.

Thank you, sir.

EDWARDS:

May I just respond briefly to that, to the director? I will be happy to do that. I would like to see what changes you have made. But I think there is a fundamental issue here, which I again will be happy to talk with you about.

MUELLER:

If I can make one more point? As you have quoted from—pieces from a number of reports, I also know that you have received letters from state and local law enforcement, who do not share your view that the bureau cannot undertake this and, to the contrary, believe that the bureau ought to undertake this responsibility because so much of it relies on the integration of the federal government with state and local law enforcement.

EDWARDS:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.