LIEBERMAN
CLARIFIES INTELLIGENCE-SHARING
FOR NEW DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
IN LETTER TO BUSH, LIEBERMAN WARNS
AGAINST TURF WARS
December
17, 2002
WASHINGTON -
Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.,
reacting to recent press reports, expressed concern Tuesday that
the administration may be planning to withhold intelligence
information from the Intelligence Division of the new Department
of Homeland Security.
In a letter
to President Bush, dated December 17, Lieberman outlined
Congress’ intent for the intelligence agencies to share with
the new Department, as a matter of routine, a variety of
information, including unevaluated data..
“The assumption behind the legislation is that unless
you or future Presidents determine otherwise, all information
about terrorist threats that the Secretary considers necessary,
including so-called “unevaluated intelligence” (sometimes
called “raw intelligence) possessed by intelligence agencies,
would be routinely shared with the Department of Homeland
Security,” Lieberman wrote.
Noting the
catastrophic consequences of the intelligence agencies’
failure to share information in the months leading up to
September 11, 2001, Lieberman urged the president to exercise
“clear and decisive” leadership to ensure the Department of
Homeland Security has the information it needs to protect the
American people.
“It
appears that, in order to protect their own turf, some key
agencies may already be working against the spirit of the
legislation,” Lieberman wrote. “If so, I call on you to
intervene immediately and clarify to the intelligence community
and the nation that the new Department will play the central
role in fusing and analysing intelligence that Congress intended
it to play.”
Attached is
a copy of the letter:
December
17, 2002
The
Honorable George W. Bush
President
United States of America
Dear
Mr. President:
I am writing concerning information in a December 6, 2002
article in The Washington Post entitled “Homeland
Security Won’t Have Diet of Raw Intelligence.”
According to the article, the Administration is in the
process of drafting guidelines to determine how the new
intelligence directorate in the Department of Homeland Security
(“the Department”) will access intelligence collected by
other Federal agencies. Among
other things, The Post reported that: (1) for now, the
intelligence agencies have persuaded the White House that
information provided to the Department should be in the form of
summary reports which generally will not include raw
intelligence; (2) according to “administration officials,”
the new department will receive undigested intelligence only
when Governor Ridge makes the case for it under yet undefined
procedures; and (3) a number of officials at the FBI, CIA, and
NSA have “deep misgivings” about distributing raw
intelligence too widely, especially to a new and untested
department.
If these and
other aspects of The Post’s story are accurate, then I
am very troubled about the direction the Administration appears
to be taking with respect to this critical issue - a direction
that I believe may conflict with the letter and spirit of the
new Homeland Security law. It
appears that, in order to protect their own turf, some key
agencies may already be working against the spirit of the
legislation. If so,
I call on you to intervene immediately and clarify to the
intelligence community and the nation that the new Department
will play the central role in fusing and analysing intelligence
that Congress intended it to play.
It is time to nip these damaging bureaucratic turf
battles in the bud and ensure from the start that the Department
has broad access to the information it needs to protect the
American people.
As you know,
the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, which I chaired in
the 107th Congress, conducted numerous hearings on
the proposed Department of Homeland Security, including its
intelligence needs and relationship to the intelligence
community. The
Committee subsequently approved and submitted legislation to the
full Senate which forms the basis of the final bill which you
signed into law.
The
legislative history makes it clear that, to protect our homeland
effectively, the intelligence division of the new the Department
must provide the kind of all-sources intelligence analysis that
we now know was missing in our government prior to September 11
and remains missing today. The
new Department must close the unacceptable gap in our defenses
by serving as the central focal point for the analysis of
intelligence related to terrorist threats against our homeland.
And it must have the capacity to focus on the full range
of threats to our country posed by terrorists.
The vision I
outline is consistent with the legislation you signed, which
establishes a Directorate of
“information analysis and infrastructure protection”
that will be headed by a Presidentially appointed, Senate
confirmed Undersecretary. The
responsibilities of the Undersecretary include “to
disseminate, as appropriate, information analyzed by the
Department within the Department, to other agencies of the
Federal Government with responsibilities relating to homeland
security, and to agencies of State and local governments and
private sector entities with such responsibilities in order to
assist in the deterrence, prevention, preemption of, or response
to, terrorist attacks against the United States.”
To fulfill
this objective, the legislation provides the Secretary authority
to routinely access information collected by the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, and other
agencies in our government.
The assumption behind the legislation is that unless you
or future Presidents determine otherwise, all information about
terrorist threats that the Secretary considers necessary,
including so-called “unevaluated intelligence” (sometimes
called “raw intelligence) possessed by intelligence agencies,
would be routinely shared with the Department of Homeland
Security. The
precise language states that, “except as otherwise directed by
the President, the Secretary shall have such access as the
Secretary considers necessary to all information, including
reports, assessments, analyses, and unevaluated intelligence
(italics added) relating to threats of terrorism against the
United States and to other areas of responsibility assigned by
the Secretary, and to all information concerning infrastructure
or other vulnerabilities of the United States to terrorism, whether
or not such information has been analyzed (italics added),
that may be collected, possessed, or prepared by any
agency of the Federal Government.”
The aforementioned story in The Washington Post
raises concerns that the Administration’s approach may not be
consistent with the legislation.
For example, if the only information provided to the
Department of Homeland Security is in the form of “summary
reports,” this would unnecessarily limit access to vital,
underlying information that the Department needs to protect the
American people. Of
course, much depends on the specific content of these “summary
reports.” But the
legislation lists “reports, assessments, analyses, and
unevaluated intelligence” specifically in order to signal that
the Secretary should have broad access to information about
terrorist threats possessed by the intelligence community and
other agencies. “Summary
reports” from the FBI, CIA and other intelligence agencies may
not be sufficient to meet this requirement.
Comments
attributed to Administration officials that the new Department
would receive “undigested intelligence” only when the
Secretary “makes the case” also misinterpret the law.
The bill’s language states clearly that except as
otherwise directed by the President (italics added) such
information - referred to in the legislation as “unevaluated
intelligence”- should be shared.
Of course, the President can ultimately determine if the
Secretary should not have access to certain highly sensitive
information. However,
as a matter of course, the Secretary should not be required to
“make the case” before undigested intelligence is shared.
To the contrary, agencies that do not wish to share such
information, for whatever reason, should be required to make the
case as to why they should not share that information.
The Post
also reported that a number of officials at the FBI, CIA, and
NSA have “deep misgivings” about distributing raw
intelligence to a new and untested department.
But this concern too is explicitly addressed in the
legislation, which provides that many of the analysts within the
Department will be drawn from the ranks of existing intelligence
agencies and that all must have the necessary and appropriate
security clearances. The
legislation also makes the Department responsible for working
with the Director of Central Intelligence to protect sources and
methods and with the Attorney General to protect sensitive law
enforcement information. While
these “misgivings” may be understandable for those who want
to preserve the status
quo,
they must be overcome if we are to correct the systematic
intelligence breakdowns that plagued and still plague our
government. There
should be no “misgivings” about sharing intelligence with
analysts who are themselves from the very agencies producing the
intelligence, and who have the clearances necessary to handle
the information.
Finally, the legislation includes the elements of the
Department concerned with analysis of foreign intelligence in
the intelligence community while empowering the Secretary to
consult with the Director of Central Intelligence and other
agencies on our nation’s intelligence gathering priorities.
These provisions should ensure that the Department will
become a full partner with the Central Intelligence Agency and
other agencies in our intelligence community, and that it has a
crucial seat at the table in all proceedings where
intelligence-gathering priorities are established.
It goes without saying that to protect our country, all
Federal agencies must be held accountable for working
cooperatively, and in close partnership, with the new
Department.
Given the well-documented problems with the refusal of
agencies in the Federal government to share intelligence about
terrorists with each other- and the catastrophic consequences
for our nation - it is vital that the Administration establishes
a robust intelligence analysis capability in the Department and
does everything necessary to overcome bureaucratic resistance to
information sharing within the intelligence community.
Now is not the time to cater to outdated notions of
protecting the turf of the CIA, FBI, or any other agency by
implementing the new law in a way which validates precisely the
behavior that was the major failure of our government prior to
September 11, 2001. Now
is the time to boldly and fully implement this legislation and
improve our government’s capacity to prevent terrorist attacks
on our homeland.
As the
Administration moves forward to establish the Department of
Homeland Security, and specifically the directorate of
information analysis and infrastructure protection, I strongly
urge you to exercise the executive leadership necessary to
ensure that the Department includes the kind of robust
information analysis and infrastructure protection directorate
our nation desperately needs.
There is no more important aspect of the new Department
of Homeland Security, and, considering the continuing reluctance
of some agencies to overcome their past, no area where clear and
decisive Presidential leadership is needed more.
Sincerely,
Joseph
I. Lieberman
Chairman
|