Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee

August 19, 2004 Thursday

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SUBJECT: THE 9/11 COMMISSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND BORDER SECURITY

CHAIRED BY: SENATOR ORRIN G. HATCH (R-UT)

WITNESSES PANEL I:

LEE HAMILTON, VICE CHAIR, 9/11 COMMISSION;

SLADE GORTON, COMMISSIONER, 9/11 COMMISSION;

PANEL II: ASA HUTCHINSON, UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; MAUREEN BAGINSKI, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, INTELLIGENCE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

LOCATION: 226 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

SEN. MIKE DeWINE (R-OH): (Off mike.) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank all of you --

SEN. HATCH: Turn the thing on.

SEN. DeWINE: We thank all of you for your great work, the very wonderful job each one of you has done.

Ms. Baginski, let me ask you the first question. You talked about in great detail of improvement in the area of intelligence and information.

The September 11th Commission outlined in great detail a lot of problems and I think we're all very familiar with the story leading up to September 11th. Explain to me in layman's terms what is different today from what was the situation of September 10th as far as the FBI is concerned. And do it in the terms of an FBI agent.

We've heard-Senator Leahy has described the problem, our continuing frustration. I know Director Mueller has the same frustration with the computer system that is not progressing as fast as we would like it to. But what is the difference today for an agent who seeks information or who needs information or who wants to share information? Not in general terms but in just-in real specific terms.

MS. BAGINSKI: I think there is a difference in-I can answer this in terms of technology. But --

SEN. DeWINE: But I don't want that. I want to know-give me an example that I can understand. What matters? What's the difference today?

MS. BAGINSKI: Okay. I think there are three areas and I will try to cover them in as much detail as I can.

SEN. DeWINE: No. I don't want three areas.

MS. BAGINSKI: You want a specific example?

SEN. DeWINE: Yeah. Give me an example. Tell me a story in the next five minutes. What difference does it make? How are we any better off today than we were prior to September 11th? Tell the American people why they should feel better.

MS. BAGINSKI: Okay. On the first order, terrorism is number one priority of every member of the FBI. Since 9/11, as you know, we have expanded-with our responsibility, we have expanded our number of joint terrorism task forces, which --

SEN. DeWINE: Excuse me. I'm sorry.

MS. BAGINSKI: I'm still not doing what you want?

SEN. DeWINE: No.

MS. BAGINSKI: I know you want a specific example.

SEN. DeWINE: Tell me what does a FBI agent knows today or can do today that he or she couldn't do. What can they share? What comes up on their computer screen? How's that?

MS. BAGINSKI: Okay. I got it. Before 9/11, agents could not send with any ease e-mails to one another across a secret network. Now that can be done. Before 9/11, agents did not have access to other agency intelligence production in the Joint Terrorism task forces and now they do. So they can actually go into a database and enter that like system and actually access that information and find out if there is other information that they need and can act upon in terms of working the case.

Prior to 9/11, all cases in the FBI, I think as you have all said, would have been open first as counterterrorism cases in the sense of prosecution. Post-9/11, all cases in the counterterrorism arena are open as intelligence cases first so that, instead of the intelligence component being a sub-file in the larger case, the intelligence is driving that and is one of the tools in the toolkit that the agent brings to bear on neutralizing a threat.

Prior to 9/11, the analyst, the intelligence analyst at the FBI could not with any ease ask questions of data that was aggregated for them into federated queries across the database. Since 9/11, we can.

SEN. DeWINE: What kind of search can I do now?

MS. BAGINSKI: You can do essentially, if you are an analyst, you an do a search against a finite body of information at the secret level and on one network and at the top secret and higher, on another network. That in fact is exactly what you can do in your living room. You can ask questions of the data and the answers will be pushed to you.

SEN. DeWINE: What if I am an agent in San Diego and I'm working on a particular case and I have-and I think there might be similarities between that and I'm wondering if there is a similar case somewhere else in the country and I want to put in a series of words, can I do that?

MS. BAGINSKI: You can. You can do a word search engine and will get the answer.

SEN. DeWINE: And I will now get the answer?

MS. BAGINSKI: Yes, sir.

SEN. DeWINE: Okay. What can't I do now that I should be able to do in two years or three years and four years?

MS. BAGINSKI: Right now --

SEN. DeWINE: What do you frustrate about? What are you upset about? What bothers you today that you can't do?

MS. BAGINSKI: I think there are three critical areas. The first would be to be able to operate in a top secret code word environment which is connected to the commission's recommendation to help us with our secure classified information facilities. We have and the FBI does and all the field offices have secure classified information facilities. They're very, very small areas. I sometimes joke that they look like closets and they generally have an intel link computer there and what I'm saying is, if we want to be part of this network in which the larger intelligence community operates, we need that kind of --

SEN. DeWINE: Excuse me, I don't understand what that means. Does that mean that only a limited number of agents have access to that? Is that the problem? What does that mean?

MS. BAGINSKI: Well, the physical access is determined by your security clearance. So of course, everyone that is cleared to the secret and top secret area, which is the way that we do our clearances, would have access. My point is it is usually one or two terminals which-it's the hardware that's limiting, if you understand. And the security classified information space is necessary to be expanded to accommodate that hardware and the network.

SEN. DeWINE: So that creates the problem of what? Just not enough people being able to get at it that need to get at it?

MS. BAGINSKI: Yes, sir. As I expand the number of analysts that are out in the field, which is what I really need to do, I'm going to need more space for them to access that classified information.

SEN. DeWINE: Would every field office have access to it though?

MS. BAGINSKI: Yes, sir.

SEN. DeWINE: What are other problems that you're having that you will be able to solve in the next couple of years when the system is totally up?

MS. BAGINSKI: The other issue I think for all of us is what I think Senator Leahy was referring to, which is the automatic entry of information into corporate databases. Trilogy, as you know, was three initiatives. Hardware is there. The LANs are there. It is the application, the virtual case file case management application that allows the automatic entry of this information into corporate databases for follow on analysis. That is the part that is delayed.

So we have delivered two except for this application. I think the solution of that in the hands of our chief information officer, Zal Azmi. That will help the robustness of my analyst database which is called the Investigative Data Warehouse. That will help my analysts have the breadth they need of information to actually do the queries again.

And I think, finally, -- I'm sorry, go ahead.

SEN. DeWINE: When do you expect that to be up?

MS. BAGINSKI: We will have some delivery of that by the end of this year and I would like to you with the specifics because I'm not-I'm actually not as current on that as I should be. Lastly, for me I have a training issue and it's not a small issue. And it's going to require an investment both in terms of facility and in terms of expertise and in terms of time. In building this cadre that has been recommended to us by the commission, I think very rightly recommended by the commission, there is a wonderful training capacity in Quantico.

There is a very powerful FBI and, I would say, law enforcement brand in Quantico. But to build in there that same expertise and capacity for teaching intelligence both to the agents and to the analysts and to the linguists and then to our partners in state and local law enforcement, that actually is an investment and it's going to be both of time and in some facilities and infrastructure. I am very pleased with the work we've done. I just want to share with you very briefly.

We have just overhauled our basic analysis training, seven core learning objectives. Those learning objectives are now being worked into the new agents class. They are the same learning objectives, the same modules and the magic will be that we will have agents and analysts doing joint exercises together when they are in training. We need to offer that to our state and local partners. The National Academy has been very powerful as that partner. We need to be able to offer that same thing. So thank you.

SEN. DeWINE: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.