Hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Panel 1- Strategic Planning of Intelligence Functions and the Pace of Intelligence Reform at the FBI
Interview
Hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Panel 1- Strategic Planning of Intelligence Functions and the Pace of Intelligence Reform at the FBI
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
SEN. OLYMPIA SNOWE (R-ME): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: -- ever patient Senator Snowe --
SEN. SNOWE: Thank you.
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: -- all by herself --
SEN. SNOWE: You have to have patience around here --
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: -- over there on the left. (Laughter.)
SEN. SNOWE: -- with these two gentlemen now.
But I want to welcome you both, Governor Kean and Congressman Hamilton. It's great to see you and not only welcome you to this committee but, more importantly, we thank you for your continuing ongoing leadership and stewardship and being the conscience of a nation to make sure that we continue to do what we need to do regarding the 9/11 recommendations and much more. So I really want to express my gratitude as well to both of you.
This clearly is a very frustrating issue, because I know I'm familiar and have served on the Foreign Affairs with you, Congressman Hamilton, for many years and worked on information-sharing, so I've certainly encountered the issues within the FBI in resisting just sharing of information.
And, you know, we're in a transformational period, you know, even more so today, and we're encountering the continuing ongoing preeminent threat, al Qaeda, as well as being in a war in Iraq. So I think there is a sense of urgency. I'm concerned that that sense of urgency isn't permeating the culture within the FBI.
And beyond constraining the budget -- which I think you're right; I think that certainly would get their attention -- what else could we be doing to reverse the culture in establishing a certain pace of reform for the number of issues that have been identified here today, elevating the status of intelligence analysts, for example, and a number of issues that were highlighted by the inspector general in his recent report?
You know, maybe we should establish the hiring goals and doing all the things they've failed to do to implement the 9/11 recommendations where they have, you know, certainly demonstrated very little progress on many of those issues.
If we think it's that important, then I think that we should take it a step further and do what we can within the authorization capabilities of our committees to address these issues and to force the change, because it is urgent. I mean, frankly, we don't know where we are in time in terms of experiencing another event.
So the sooner we can get this done -- and I just don't see anything across the board, to be honest with you, that would suggest that we have turned the corner within the FBI, because we're not elevating the status of these intelligence analysts. And as you mentioned, Governor Kean, they're viewed as glorified secretaries. They're not giving them the amount of counterterrorism training, from what I can understand.
So what can we do to elevate this entire intelligence function within the FBI? And should we take statutory steps? Should we enact legislation to mandate specific changes in the pace of that reform in conjunction with the vision? You have to have the leadership. You have to have the vision. But also you have to have a sense of urgency in establishing the deadlines and the time lines by which it is accomplished as well.
MR. KEAN: Well, I think that's a good question.
I think under the leadership of this committee, I think you have to make it very clear that what's going on up to this point is unacceptable -- just plain unacceptable. And perhaps you establish goals, perhaps you establish mandates, perhaps you say, "We expect this to be done" as a committee, because nothing in that staff report is things that shouldn't be done. You know, six years after 9/11, a lot of them should have been done a long time ago.
It's just -- and It's not -- again, Congressman Hamilton is right. It's not that they haven't done some things. I mean, Director Mueller has been kind enough to brief Lee Hamilton and I a number of times and there's been progress, but these things that we've brought up today aren't acceptable. A lot of them are the kinds of things that if not addressed could lead to another terrorist attack. And Lee, I think, is totally right when he talks about a nuclear threat. Whether or not they're taking that -- the president of the United States on down has said that's our biggest danger; not maybe our biggest probability, but our biggest danger. If so are they taking it -- are they treating it as the biggest danger? I mean, all those kind of questions, I think, are very important to this committee to ask. And maybe, as I said, some goals, some standards, some expectations of the committee -- by a certain date this should be done -- maybe that would have an impact.
MR. HAMILTON: As you were asking your question, Senator, I was thinking of several areas that I would focus on if I were sitting where you are. You began your comments with the phrase "sharing of intelligence." And of course, you'll remember, in our 9/11 commission report that was the heart of what we said was wrong. We didn't share intelligence and there are all kinds of examples of that.
The key point in sharing of intelligence is how this relationship between the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence works. That's where the sharing has to take place. If it doesn't take place there it doesn't take place. And that becomes a crucial relationship. And I would want to know a lot more about how that relationship works. That relationship is not going to work unless the two principals -- the DNI and the director of the FBI -- work and lead on the sharing of information. It has no chance of working unless those two principals are very heavily involved. They are both essential actors in seeing that information is shared among the -- whatever it is -- 14 or 15 intelligence agencies in this government. And they have to build that effective relationship. And if they don't have the right relationship there it isn't going to work. So I would really focus on this business of sharing information.
Number two: I would focus on the role of the analyst, because when we're talking about a cultural change, this is it. The special agent occupies a position of preeminence in the FBI. It's like a four-star general. The special agent in charge -- that is a big deal in the FBI. It always has been and probably always should be. They're very able people and they have enormous responsibilities. But if your focus, as Tom was saying a moment ago, is going to be counterterrorism, that shifts the demands of the FBI -- quite bluntly -- the things that would drive the FBI from the special agent to the analyst, because the analyst has to tell you where the threat is and what the nature of the threat is. And if that's your job, intelligence on threats, domestic threats, then the analyst becomes the key player. What that means is that the analyst cannot be secondary to the special agent. The analyst must be at least elevated to the special agent in money, in incentives, in retention and training and all the rest of it. So I would focus very heavily on that.
I would focus heavily on the IT system. Senator Mikulski mentioned this a moment ago, one hundred and whatever it was, seventy million dollars down the tubes, we all know about that. And now they have the sentinel system. How is that working? Do they really have the capabilities in the FBI to match the commercial private sector? And if they don't have, why don't they have it, and how quick are they going to get it? (Laughs.) I'm very impatient about that system because I think it really is key to better counterintelligence work. So those are some of the things I'd focus on.
I mentioned in my opening statement the whole question of management. I think Director Mueller's made quite an effort to reach out beyond the confines of the FBI to bring good managers in. My recollection is they have a couple management studies going on right now. I'd want to know what those studies show and how they're going to be implemented. Those are some of the things I'd really focus on.
SEN. SNOWE: Well, I appreciate that. And again, I appreciate your efforts. Maybe it's beyond the reach of one person. Maybe it does require more intervention on our part to put the intelligence analysts on the same level, on an equal level. Maybe we have to go further and start to address some of those critical issues. And I thank you both very, very much.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source