Hearings
Hearing Type:
Open
Location:
Full Transcript
[Senate Hearing 108-182]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-182
NOMINATION OF FRANK LIBUTTI TO BE UNDER SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION
ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
Before the
SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
of the
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOMINATION OF FRANK LIBUTTI TO BE UNDER SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION
ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
__________
JUNE 17 AND 18, 2003
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
90-302 wASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas, Chairman
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Vice Chairman
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah CARL LEVIN, Michigan
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri RON WYDEN, Oregon
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine EVAN BAYH, Indiana
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
BILL FRIST, Tennessee, Ex Officio
THOMAS A. DASCHLE, South Dakota, Ex Officio
------
Bill Duhnke, Staff Director
Christopher K. Mellon, Minority Staff Director
Kathleen P. McGhee, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
Page
Hearing held in Washington, D.C., June 17, 2003.................. 1
Statement of Libutti, Frank, Nominee to be Undersecretary of
Homeland Security for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection..................................................... 4
Supplemental Materials:
Letter dated May 28, 2002 from Senator Roberts and Senator
Rockefeller to Mr. Libutti transmitting questionnaire and
pre-hearing questions...................................... 23
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Questionnaire for
Completion by Presidential Nominees........................ 24
Questions for Nominee and responses.......................... 37
Comstock, Amy L., Director, Office of Government Ethics
Letter to the Honorable Pat Roberts, Chairman, Select
Committee on Intelligence dated May 12, 2003............... 40
Financial Disclosure Report of Frank Libutti................. 41
Coyle, Robert E., Designated Agency Ethics Official U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, letter dated August 4,
2003....................................................... 47
Memorandum from Frank Libutti, dated August 1, 2003.......... 48
Hearing held in Washington, D.C., June 18, 2003.................. 21
NOMINATION OF FRANK LIBUTTI, LIEUTENANT GENERAL, USMC, RET., TO BE
UNDER SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY FOR INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND
INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Select Committee on Intelligence,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:40 p.m., in
room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Pat Roberts
(chairman of the committee), presiding.
Committee Members Present: Senators Roberts, DeWine,
Warner, Rockefeller, Levin, and Wyden.
Chairman Roberts. The Committee will come to order. Senator
Rockefeller should be here in the very near future.
This afternoon the Committee considers the nomination of
Lieutenant General Frank Libutti to serve as our nation's first
Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Information Analysis
and Infrastructure Protection. That's a mouthful but it's a
very important challenge, and very important responsibility,
and I personally think we have the right man for the job.
Now President Bush has chosen the General to fill an
important position that was created by the Homeland Security
Act of 2002. Oddly enough, the original version of that
legislation did not include an intelligence function. At the
express urging of this Committee, however, the legislation
actually signed into law by the President includes important
provisions establishing intelligence analysis and sharing as an
integral function of the new Department.
The Homeland Security Act established a Directorate for
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, to create
the direct links between intelligence analysts and those
responsible for protecting critical U.S. infrastructure. Now,
in plain English, critical infrastructure means agriculture,
food, water, public health, banking, financial institutions,
transportation and probably a few others. Timely and reliable
intelligence must play an integral role as the Department of
Homeland Security assesses the threat posed to these important
sectors by terrorists.
If confirmed--or, rather, when confirmed--General Libutti
will be responsible for sharing threat information with state
and local authorities and others. For as long as I have been a
member, this Committee has emphasized the need for improvement
in this area. The Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks confirmed
that better information-sharing must be achieved in order to
continue the national effort against Osama bin Laden and others
like him and also to succeed.
I expect the General's new directorate to address issues
highlighted by the Joint Inquiry and to find a way to ensure
the seamless flow of information from the intelligence
community to his directorate, then on to state and local
authorities. A large factor in achieving this seamless
information flow is to find the proper working relationship
with the Director of Central Intelligence on the one hand and
with state and local authorities on the other. Both are
absolutely essential to making this country more secure. And if
you need help from us to make it happen, pick up the phone,
General.
I have met with General Libutti. I am confident of his
ability to perform the responsibilities that will be expected
of him. His experience as a senior commander in the United
States Marine Corps and as Deputy New York Police Department
Commissioner of Counterterrorism represent an excellent
background for this job. We are delighted that you are here.
General, before I turn to my colleague and friend, the Vice
Chairman, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, for any
remarks he would like to make prior to your opening statement,
I invite you to introduce any family members or other fans or
Marines that would accompany you today.
General Libutti. Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted and honored to
be here. With that as a backdrop, I'd like to introduce my
wife, Jeannie, who is a Navy captain, retired. Jeannie.
Chairman Roberts. Welcome, Jeannie.
Senator Rockefeller.
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would also like to join with you in welcoming General
Frank Libutti. We had a good chance to talk in my office. I
want to congratulate you on your nomination and what I hope
will be your approval by the entire Senate.
The centerpiece of your service has been 35 years in the
United States Marine Corps. That is something which probably
did not escape the attention of our Chairman. But I would like
to take special note, as he did, of your service beginning in
January of 2002 to what has to be one of the toughest jobs in
the entire world, and that is being New York's Deputy Police
Commissioner for Counterterrorism. You've been on the front
lines in many, many places.
We should all be very pleased the President has nominated
to the highest ranks of our new Department of Homeland Security
a leader who has learned the needs of local governments and
first responders. I meet with them all the time, as you and I
discussed in my office, and they say we're still looking for
our first dime and our first sense of direction. But then I
also understand that this is an enormous department which is
being put together and it takes some time. I hope and I trust--
in fact I'm confident--that you will be a strong advocate for
their needs and their requirements because you have been there.
In addition to welcoming you, General, this hearing is an
occasion to welcome the Department of Homeland Security to the
oversight status of this Committee. The office to which you
have been nominated, that of Under Secretary of Homeland
Security for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection, was created by section 201 of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002.
Section 201 lays out the main functions of the Under
Secretary's directorate. One is to access, receive and analyze
law enforcement and intelligence information in order to
identify and assess the nature and scope of terrorist threats
to the homeland. The second is to assess the vulnerabilities of
the key resources and critical infrastructure of the United
States and plan for their protection.
In carrying out these responsibilities, section 201 directs
the Under Secretary to consult with the Director of Central
Intelligence, among others, to establish collection priorities
for information relating to terrorism threats against the
United States. It is clear that the Under Secretary has
important responsibilities relating to intelligence. It is not
surprising, therefore, that the final subsection of section 201
amends the National Security Act of 1947, the basic charter of
U.S. intelligence, to make part of the intelligence community
``the elements of the Department of Homeland Security concerned
with the analysis of foreign intelligence information.''
As the Committee charged by the Senate to ``provide
vigilant legislative oversight to the intelligence activities
of the United States,'' we look forward to Homeland Security's
participation in the intelligence community and congressional
oversight of it. During the course of this hearing and of our
endeavors, I'd like to ask you to consider two issues, and I'll
probably have others.
First, just last November, on establishing the department
of Homeland Security, Congress by law gave to that department
responsibility to integrate from all governmental sources
terrorist threat information. The following month, in December,
this Committee joined our House counterpart on conclusion of
the September 11 Joint Inquiry in recommending that ``Congress
and the Administration should ensure the full development
within the Department of Homeland Security of an effective all-
source terrorism information fusion center that will
dramatically improve the focus and quality of counterterrorism
analysis.''
Then, in January, the President created the TTIC and placed
it under the Director of Central Intelligence. We should ask,
can the law and the presidential directive be reconciled, and I
will ask that, both in conformity to the law and in the
interest of effective counterterrorism. And if it can be
reconciled, how is it reconciled?
Secondly, under the directorate that you, General, have
been nominated to head, you are charged with formulating a
comprehensive national plan for securing the key resources and
critical infrastructure of the United States. The Under
Secretary if also charged with making recommendations on
measures that are necessary to protect resources and
infrastructure ``in cooperation with state and local government
agencies and authorities, the private sector, and other
entities.''
As my colleagues know, I strongly believe that our national
government has so far failed to provide the state and local
governments the assistance they require to undertake essential
tasks that fall first to the first responders. I trust that our
nominee, having just come from a position of high
responsibility as I've described, can bring to the Homeland
Security Department both knowledge and conviction about the
needs of our states and the local governments within them.
I look forward to hearing the nominee's views on measures
that are needed to make state and local governments full and
effective partners in our national effort against terrorism.
And I thank you and welcome you, and you too, ma'am.
Chairman Roberts. General, please feel free to make your
statement. Rest assured that your entire statement will be made
part of the public record.
STATEMENT OF FRANK LIBUTTI, LIEUTENANT GENERAL, USMC, RET.,
UNDER SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY FOR INFORMATION ANALYSIS
AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION-DESIGNATE
General Libutti. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Rockefeller and distinguished Members
of the Committee, I am very pleased to come before you today as
you consider my nomination as Under Secretary for Information
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection. Before I begin, I would
like to thank President Bush and Secretary Ridge for placing
their confidence in me. I am honored and humbled to be
nominated to serve in the Department of Homeland Security.
For the past 37 years I have devoted my professional life
to serving my country and combating terrorism. It is this
experience that I hope to bring to this new Department. With me
today is my wife, Jeannie, who I previously introduced. Her
support has been absolutely superb in coaching and teaching me
the rules of the road relative to my responsibilities both on
the job and at home.
For the past 16 months, I have served as the Deputy
Commissioner for Counterterrorism of the great city of New York
and for the New York Police Department, where I was focused on
the prevention of, response to, and investigation of terrorist
acts in New York City. Through my time with the New York City
police department I have come to appreciate firsthand the
responsibilities of our first defenders and first responders
and the organizations that support them.
Previous to my work as Deputy Commissioner in the NYPD, I
helped stand up the Office of Homeland Security for the
Department of Defense, where I served as the special Assistant
to the Executive Agent for Homeland Security in the Department
of Defense.
I was honored to serve for 35 years in the United States
Marine Corps. My last assignment was as Commanding General
Marine Forces Pacific, Commanding General Marine Forces Central
Command, Commanding General Marine Forces Korea, and Commanding
General Marine Corps Bases Pacific. I was privileged to command
75 percent of the Corps' operating forces, plus Marines
stationed at our bases in southern California, Hawaii, and
Japan, with my commands totaling approximately 80,000 Marines
and civilians. During my last nine years as a General Officer,
I routinely dealt with operational and strategic issues at the
national level, which included our country's major war plans
and humanitarian operations.
If I should become the new Under Secretary of IAIP, I will
do everything within my power to accomplish our mission of
protecting the American people from terrorism by identifying
and assessing threats to the homeland, mapping those threats
against our vulnerabilities, issuing warnings, and providing
the basis from which to organize protective measures to secure
our homeland.
I will work to ensure that we meet our mission by
effectively partnering on a number of levels. We will work with
the CIA, the FBI and other members of the intelligence and law
enforcement communities both to receive and to share
information. As information is collected and mapped to critical
infrastructure vulnerabilities, our top priority must be to get
this information to those federal, state and local officials
who represent the first line of defense against and response to
terrorist attacks.
Just as we need to partner effectively with our
counterparts in federal and local governments, we must form and
maintain active partnerships and information-sharing procedures
with the critical infrastructure sectors. Eighty-five percent
of critical infrastructure in the nation is owned and operated
by private industry, so we must build relationships that
deliver timely and appropriate warnings and protective measures
to our private partners.
Significant progress has been made and continues to be made
in the IAIP Directorate. I am impressed with the quality of
people in this organization and the dedication and diligence
they have shown in addressing their mission. As with any new
organization, there is work to be done implementing processes,
procedures and structure. I approach this process of
organization fully realizing that at any given moment we must
be ready to respond to a crisis. I am confident that we can
handle the challenges presented today and, as each day passes,
we will handle them with ever-increasing skill and aplomb.
As Secretary Ridge has said time and time again, ``When our
hometowns are secure, our homeland will be secure.'' That is
not merely rhetoric but a fundamental principle of the nation's
homeland security effort. Everyone is a partner in this effort.
In addition to the other public and private partners I have
already mentioned, I will work to cultivate effective
partnerships with the Congress, academia, and the American
people themselves. Each partnership will be a two-way
communications channel, built on trust, that enables the timely
and reliable exchange of information.
I come before you today with a readiness to provide
leadership that is exercised not only in-house but with our
partners. We must be aggressive in reaching out and connecting
and staying connected with those partners to provide an
extraordinary and unprecedented exchange of information. This
information must be not only actionable by local law
enforcement and first responders but must also empower the
average citizen to do their part in securing our homeland. We
must provide advisories and warnings that encourage prevention
and help to mitigate loss. I recognize the critical role in
homeland security of the office for which I am being
considered. This is a job that must be done right. The
challenges we face in doing so are numerous and must be
approached with a sense of urgency. I assure you that I
personally have the enthusiasm to address these challenges and
to make a difference.
I clearly understand my mission and I am conscious of and
appreciate the responsibilities I will be given if confirmed.
Mr. Chairman, Senators, I respectfully ask for your
favorable consideration for my nomination and I stand ready to
respond to any questions that you may ask.
Thank you, sir.
Chairman Roberts. Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
particularly wanted to join the members of the Committee today
to listen to this distinguished American who has obviously had
a record of achievement that ably qualifies him for this
important position.
I'm studying a wiring diagram, Mr. Chairman. You are an
expert on wiring diagrams, and it's the Department of Homeland
Defense. I'm trying to get it clear in mind your reporting
chain.
General Libutti. Sir, my boss is Secretary Ridge.
Senator Warner. So then through England? I am just kind of
curious.
General Libutti. I think it would be altogether fitting and
proper that I kept the Deputy informed, but my boss is the
Secretary. I intend to exercise my mission with consideration
and sensitivity to the position of the Deputy, but my boss is
the Secretary.
Senator Warner. I anticipate that you're going to have to
on occasion make some very, very quick decisions, and I hope
that that chain enables you to do that with the concurrence of
the Secretary, when you and he deem it necessary. I expect he's
imposed in you a lot of discretion to be able to act in
instances of emergency. Would I be correct in that?
General Libutti. Sir, you are correct.
Senator Warner. On the question of intelligence, to what
extent will you have access to, if you so desire, the raw
intelligence which can be amassed, as I understand it, by
really three entities. You've got the Terrorist Threat
Integration Center. That works for the Director of Central
Intelligence. And your primary domestic intelligence collection
is the FBI Security Division that works for the Department of
Justice. And then, of course, the CIA is involved in this in
terms of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center.
Kind of tie that together for me. How are you going to work
all of these? It's a rather interesting orchestration.
General Libutti. First, I'll tell you that in terms of
personal leadership and reaching out for counterparts at all
the agencies you mentioned, I'm going to build on the rapport
and leadership of Secretary Ridge, which suggests that the way
we want to do business with full trust and confidence in our
partners within the intelligence community, number one.
Number two, in terms of the Homeland Security Act, if
confirmed I will have the authority to reach out across any
intelligence borders to ask appropriate questions, to solicit
information, to ask for additional collection, and to do so
with an aggressive attitude.
Senator Warner. You actually have tasking authority, then?
General Libutti. I wouldn't say tasking so much except in
perhaps what we would call the spirit of cooperation. So, said
another way, in terms of our relationship we are both
contributor and customer depending on the situation, and I
intend to exercise that to the fullest extent possible.
I do not see, quite frankly, obstacles or borders that
would in any way, shape or form, if I'm confirmed, prevent me
from reaching out across any intelligence service that focuses
either on the domestic side or on the international overseas
side to get what I need to do my job, which is to protect the
homeland.
Senator Warner. Well, then would you sort of make some spot
checks on raw intelligence from time to time?
General Libutti. I intend to do that, yes, sir.
Senator Warner. I think that's an important function.
I have a very high regard, of course, for Secretary Ridge
and I have worked very closely and have a high regard for
Gordon England when he was in the Navy secretariat, and somehow
Ridge has really, including yourself, done a lot of recruiting
which is quite extraordinary. I expect you were recruited for
this job. Perhaps you are too humble to answer that. But anyway
I'm sure that's the case.
And I'm glad that you responded to come back into federal
service.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I think we're to
consider ourselves very fortunate that you and your very lovely
partner in life, the Captain, have rejoined and are undertaking
this effort, and I hope that you look upon this Committee as a
source of helpful guidance from time to time and advice.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Roberts. Senator DeWine.
Senator DeWine. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
General, thank you very much for joining us. We wish you
well. As my colleagues have pointed out, you have a great
background for this position and we're glad that the decision
has been made to nominate you.
I wonder if I could explore with you or if you could
comment about your relationship in this position with the
Terrorist Threat Integration Center which was established by
Presidential Directive and which has been placed under the
jurisdiction of the Director of Central Intelligence, what
their role is, your role is and how you would work together.
General Libutti. Sir, I think the TTIC is a magnificent
display or demonstration of what I call a joint effort and
partnership with the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security and other
federal agencies to integrate and analyze intelligence. The
IAIP Directorate has senior leadership represented as members
of that very special partnership. The total is seven people,
with a senior leader that exercises supervision over our folks.
I see that as a plus in that it brings both the domestic
and overseas intelligence data into one central location where
people partner in a collegial atmosphere and deal with threats
to our country.
Senator DeWine. General, but the Homeland Security Act
requires your office to access, receive, analyze law
enforcement information, intelligence information and other
information. So how do you square that with what they do? I
mean, for a layman just picking up the definitions, you'd say
well, what's the difference here. Aren't you guys doing the
same thing, duplication? What's going on here.
General Libutti. I think the answer is reflected in the
word or concept of ``complementary effort.'' As the law would
indicate and, if confirmed, I intend to follow not only the
spirit but the letter of the law, I would have a great
responsibility, in concert with local law enforcement and first
responders and state and local authorities to ask them to
support our efforts to collect and to support the broader
intelligence mosaic so we get information from local and state
authorities, it is passed back up to the IA side of IAIP, it is
analyzed, to your point of do we analyze as well as simply
collect data and record that which comes out of TTIC.
We do our own separate analytical work. Some would call it
competitive analysis. I think that's extremely healthy. It may,
when required, include red-teaming based on what we get from
the TTIC. How that makes sense to us in terms of----
Senator DeWine. Include what?
General Libutti. I'm sorry, sir?
Senator DeWine. What was the term? Your term of art was
what?
General Libutti. Red-teaming. I'm sorry. Forgive me. It's a
very simple concept that talks about designating folks within
your own camp or your own office to look at and think like and
behave in support of the way bad guys, terrorists, would come
at us, so they study the terrorist activities, their SOPs,
their approach to dealing with target sets, priorities, et
cetera. That's what they do for a living. They think and
breathe like a terrorist.
You have them on your team. They come back in to you after
you have a basic plan developed and they essentially dissect
that plan and talk about where the seams and gaps are in terms
of vulnerabilities and risk. Forgive me. It's a term of
expression we've used in the military for many, many years.
Does that answer your question, sir?
Senator DeWine. That answers what the term means, but I'm
still trying to get the difference between what you're going to
do and what--you're talking about complementary. You're talking
about competition, which is healthy, which I agree.
General Libutti. The competition piece is outside the TTIC.
The functions that I see as most critical are those that deal
with the information analysis within IAIP, the sharing of that
information so we can get it to first responders very quickly
and expedite that in a streamlined management approach to
getting it to local and state authorities.
That is different than the mission of TTIC, which is to
integrate both domestic and overseas intelligence, including
raw intelligence. Our job is not to collect. It's not to
integrate. It is to be partners with other critical members of
the intelligence community and then the byproduct of that comes
to us. We work it. We look at it in terms of the other side of
my directorate, if confirmed, which is the IP piece. So we look
very carefully at national infrastructure, which doesn't simply
mean cities and large areas. It talks about all of what the
Chairman indicated as centers of gravity across our country--
agriculture, transportation, et cetera.
So we are simultaneously looking at threats against our
infrastructure, vulnerabilities and risk relative to that
infrastructure, held up against the intelligence analysis that
we do, which is a byproduct of and also a partnership with what
comes out of TTIC. So I think it's very complementary. I am
encouraged. I will tell you that I spent three hours at TTIC's
headquarters last week and met the senior leadership there. And
I am very sanguine we can make this work.
Senator DeWine. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Roberts. Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me ask the nominee just a couple of questions. The
first is, you all are supposed to take the intelligence about
threats to the infrastructure, analyze where our weaknesses
are, and then basically give us recommendations on how to
protect ourselves and how to protect our infrastructure. How
are you going to go about doing that, and do you even have the
people? How do you go about doing it without in effect alerting
some of the people who are involved in putting our citizens at
risk to what you're up to?
General Libutti. Well, the infrastructure piece is a key
critical piece of the responsibilities I'll have if I'm
confirmed. I would tell you when I think infrastructure I not
only think about the physical piece but the cyber piece, and
I'm delighted to share with you what was an event that happened
about a week and a half ago which I witnessed, and that was the
rolling at the Office of Homeland Security of the Cyber
Security Division.
So the approach that needs to be and absolutely must be
taken in terms of our view of infrastructure protection must
include the physical and cyber piece. Having said that, the
answer to your question is again back to partnership, which
means you can't think about it; you must actively reach out for
the business community, the private sector. You must obviously
work within the law. But you must create a bridge between our
office and those leaders within the private sector.
And I think the right answer there is to send a strong
signal as soon as possible that we're interested in working
with them to improve their readiness, reduce their
vulnerabilities and, by doing so, strengthen the readiness of
the country.
Senator Wyden. You, I think, were told by the staff that I
was very much involved in section 224 of the legislation to
create the National Emergency Technology Guard mobilizing
people in the science and technology sector, and it grew out of
the 9/11 experience. Major companies like Intel were prepared
to send huge numbers of people and vast amounts of equipment to
New York, and they basically couldn't even get certified,
couldn't even get through and literally were forced to just
sort of stand around at a time when all the infrastructure was
down.
These companies are prepared now to make a huge
contribution in terms of time and equipment and personnel, and
that's what's behind the NET Guard concept. I would like to
hear your thoughts about how you're going to, if confirmed, go
about implementing this.
General Libutti. Well, I'm not a duty expert, nor am I
expert in technology. I'm a basic infantry officer that got
lucky. I would tell you that I do have experts on my staff,
starting with Bob Leskowski, who is head of the IP Directorate.
I'll rely heavily on Bob and other duty experts to help me
shape a way ahead. But the key to success is to focus on this
partnership, in my view, to ask the private sector to help us
identify how we can improve our readiness in a holistic sense.
Senator Wyden. The only thing I'd say--and I understand you
are going to have a lot on your plate and are not going to be
able to get at this in the first week--you don't have to ask
the private sector. They're telling you they're ready, but
you're going to have to do what the law calls for, and that's
to take the steps to mobilize them and to take steps, for
example, so that, for example, we even have an inventory around
the country of these people and volunteers who are prepared to
help.
I mean, you talk about asking the private sector. Not only
are they not waiting to be asked, they are volunteering. And
it's now the job of people in your organization to make sure
that we, with a very modest role for government, put in place
the system so we can tap them, so that if there were to be
another tragedy and infrastructure was knocked out in a major
city, you can call up the Intels of the country and say we need
200 people, we need the following software, we need the
following equipment, and be able to use it.
Without moving to deal with this, recognizing you may not
be able to get at it in your first 48 hours, we're going to
miss an opportunity, because this is free help. These are
people who are saying they are ready, willing and able, and
that is the point of the NET Guard kind of concept.
Everything I have heard about you is that you bring great
commitment to this position. I'm looking forward to supporting
you as we go forward, but you will hear from me frequently on
this subject because I think this is too great an asset to
fritter away because government says, oh, we ought to be asking
the private. They are ready to do it. They don't need to be
asked, but they do need a modest role in coordinating the
effort.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Libutti. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Roberts. Senator Rockefeller.
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, I indicated in my opening statement that I wanted
to ask you a couple of questions and I now want to do that. If
you could just kind of put yourself forward and pretend that
the Department of Homeland Security was in order and operating,
what we do is, as I indicated, we give you the responsibility
to access, receive and analyze law enforcement intelligence
information, number one, number two, in order to integrate that
information to identify the terrorist threat to the homeland.
So please describe how the Homeland Security Department is
carrying out--and I don't think you can answer that question
yet--or proposes to carry out this important responsibility. In
that I don't think you can, because you haven't started and
haven't been confirmed, let me get to my second question, and
then you can take off on both answers.
Number two, whether the Homeland Security Department is
receiving the full cooperation of the U.S. intelligence and law
enforcement community and what steps you would take if you were
not getting full cooperation, and only the second part of that
is really operative at this point since you're not up and
running, and thirdly, the relationship between the
responsibility that the Congress has given to you to integrate
terrorist threat information and the responsibility given by
presidential directive to the Director of Central Intelligence
to establish a Terrorism Threat Integration Center.
Do you see what I mean? There's a little bit of a rub
there.
General Libutti. My job is to eliminate the rub, to answer
your question, and, if confirmed, to make it work, sir. Number
one, I think, based on my observation--and it's only been a
couple of weeks here as a consultant at the Office of Homeland
Security--the activity in support of integration is in good
shape.
You know, the question I often get is, well, how do you
know what you don't know. And it kind of talks to one of your
questions relative to is the information being shared and what
do I intend to do if I determine it's not being shared. I
intend to be extremely aggressive about, as I mentioned
earlier, crossing all lines in terms of the intelligence
community but being as gentlemanly as possible to get what we
need to execute my mission in support of the law.
I don't see angst, frustration or walls being built around
that effort. I see cooperation across the agencies, the FBI and
the CIA and other intelligence agencies, which give me a sense
of confidence that people understand this has to be a united
effort or it's not going to work.
Now again, I'm at the infant stages of this great
experience, but I can pledge to you I will give it all of my
support and energy to do exactly what I've said, and that is--
--
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. General, I agree with how you
assess yourself. I'm not sure I agree yet with how you assess
the cooperation of the intelligence community. So that's why
the question of what would you do if you weren't getting the
cooperation, because it's my guess--and I think maybe the
intelligence community may or may not be warm to the entrance
of a new Department of Homeland Security. I'm not convinced
that they will be, because there are so many already.
But if you were not getting the information-sharing, what
would you be prepared to do? That's a fair question.
General Libutti. Yes, sir. I would go to the appropriate
agency where I thought we weren't getting support and I'd have
a face-to-face meeting with the leadership there.
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. And what if they declined to
give you an appointment?
General Libutti. I'd go to my boss and articulate the
issues and challenges and provide recommendations.
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. Okay.
General Libutti. I would add a footnote, and again forgive
me but I'm quite new to this environment, but I think I also
have a responsibility to all of you.
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. I think one of the things that
the Chairman and I are frustrated about, because we're going
through a little kind of a Degas pas de deux of some sort in
another matter entirely, is that we're not able to talk about
the things that we really want to talk about, which is
information-sharing and connecting the dots and making sure
that people are data-mining and doing all the right things and
what are we going to do about domestic intelligence and 100
other subjects. We haven't been able to get to that.
What I'm suggesting to you is I think that you will not be
as warmly received as you perceive and as you now see, and I
hope I'm wrong, and I hope if I am right that you will exercise
this in a Marinely fashion.
General Libutti. Sir, I pledge to you that I will execute
my mission smartly.
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. Good. Thank you.
Chairman Roberts. What the hell is it that you said? What
kind of dance are we doing?
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. Pas de deux. Isn't that right?
Look, she's nodding her head. I don't know what it means. Jean,
you know what it means.
Chairman Roberts. Is that like square dancing?
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. No, it's not like square-
dancing. I have no idea what it is. What is it?
Chairman Roberts. Well, it's French and you shouldn't have
used it.
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. Well, I apologize. [Laughter.]
Chairman Roberts. Sounds like dirty dancing a little bit. I
don't know what's going on.
And ``marinely?''
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. Well, I was trying to humor you,
you see. I was trying to humor you. Marinely.
Senator Levin. A new word.
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. When we were in Qatar we could
barely get to any other service area but the Marines.
Chairman Roberts. And rightly so.
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. And rightly so. [Laughter.]
Chairman Roberts. The determined and tenacious Senator from
Michigan, Senator Levin, is recognized.
Senator Levin. Whenever I go into the ``Qatar,'' I want to
be with a Marine, by the way. I need all the help I can get.
[Laughter.]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's good to be with you again.
Chairman Roberts. And again and again and again.
Senator Levin. You and I have spoken, General, about the
relationship between the Counterterrorist Center and the TTIC
and the DHS. I know Senator DeWine asked about that and I want
to just press you further on that, because we've been assured
that we would have either an Executive Order or statement of
policy or something which set forth that relationship by now
from Governor Ridge or from the Executive branch, because there
is an overlap.
In addition to making sure you can get whatever information
you need, the opposite side is also a problem, which is that if
we have too many people doing the same thing we're going to not
have accountability. This is what we saw before, going up to 9/
11, where we did not have accountability, we did not have
responsibility, and a number of things fell through the cracks
that shouldn't have fallen through the cracks.
Tell us your understanding in terms of analysis of foreign
intelligence where that principal responsibility lies as
between the Counterterrorist Center in the CIA, TTIC, which is
under the direction of the DCI, and the----
General Libutti. The DCI--I'm sorry, sir. The DCI is
charged with oversight responsibilities. The gentleman who
leads that is from the CIA, but that gentleman who is the
director of TTIC could, quite frankly, in terms of the
Memorandum of Agreement, be from Homeland Security or the FBI.
Senator Levin. Is there an agreement?
General Libutti. There is an MOU that is signed by the FBI,
the CIA and the Homeland Security office that articulates that
relationship and the collegiality with which that partnership
has been joined.
Senator Levin. Does that explain the relationship between
TTIC, CTC, and DHS. Does that Memorandum of Understanding?
General Libutti. It does say that, but I would like to add
as a sidebar before coming over I saw a letter signed by
Secretary Ridge to Senator Lieberman that addresses this very
issue, that talks to the points that you and I have talked
about in the past, and clearly articulates in terms of
definition and responsibility and accountability who does what
to whom.
Senator Levin. And does that document----
General Libutti. It should have been released by midday or
early afternoon, sir.
Senator Levin. Today?
General Libutti. Yes, sir, that's correct.
Senator Levin. And what does it say as to where the
principal responsibility lies for analyzing foreign
intelligence? Who has it?
General Libutti. The responsibility in terms of overseas
collection and initial analysis rests with the Agency.
Senator Levin. With CTC?
General Libutti. With CTC.
Senator Levin. The initial analysis. Who does the final
analysis?
General Libutti. Well, if I may, sir, again I want to stay
focused on what I know and not talk about what I don't know. I
am not an expert in terms of CTC. I understand what TTIC's
responsibilities are and I know what my responsibilities are in
terms of IAIP. So I don't want to get over my head and respond
incorrectly to any details on CTC. I can simply tell you that
because it's led by the Agency and the Agency's focus is
overseas in terms of collection, analysis and actions, where
appropriate, I would like to punctuate that with a period and
say I'd like to shift to talk about TTIC and IAIP, if I may.
Senator Levin. It's fine to talk about TTIC, but then I've
got to ask you what is the relationship between TTIC and CTC.
Who has the responsibilities between them for analyzing foreign
intelligence?
General Libutti. I think in a very both collegial and
ecumenical fashion the Agency has their responsibilities in
terms of the analytical spin on information and intelligence
connecting the dots and the rest, with a view towards
actionable supporting events.
Now I want to, if I may, bring you back into the TTIC
piece. That is a joint venture designed to bring the best of
and most relevant data in terms of the intelligence community
into that fora to look at what it means, analyze it and
integrate it.
Senator Levin. But that's what CTC does.
General Libutti. But the focus is not both domestic and
international.
Senator Levin. It's foreign terrorism.
General Libutti. Correct, sir.
Senator Levin. It's analyzing foreign terrorism. And my
question has got to be answered, if not today it seems to me
for the sake of the health of our country, that we've got to
know who's got the responsibility to analyze foreign terrorism,
to put together all the information, to integrate it, as you
have put it. They've got great brains there at CTC, the same
folks, I'll bet you, sitting around the CTC table that sit
around the TTIC table. As a matter of fact, I'd like to know of
anybody at TTIC who is not at CTC. What agency is represented
at TTIC that is not at CTC? There may be. I don't know of any,
but there may be.
But you've got the same agencies, with one exception--one
exception, I think--and that is there would be something of a
greater focus in terms of state and local law enforcement at
TTIC. But how does that come to TTIC? Who is sitting there for
state and local law enforcement at TTIC?
General Libutti. The answer to the question in terms of
influence is found in our operations center at the Department
of Homeland Security, where we have local law enforcement or
local authorities represented within our operations center.
Again, the chain of communications or chain of command in
terms of the TTIC responsibility of the analytical work and the
integration is shared with partners at that table.
Senator Levin. At TTIC.
General Libutti. If I may, that information comes to our
senior leadership. The senior leadership shares it with the
Office of Homeland Security, specifically the IA of IAIP. That
information is shared across the Department, including at our
ops center. That information is then passed to local and state
authorities in terms of on an as-needed basis and also as
relevant to the tactical or operational scenario.
To answer your question, there is a clean and proper line
of communications between local and state authorities, the
Office of Homeland Security, and, by extension, into TTIC.
Senator Levin. And is it also true that there is a line
between state and local law enforcement and CTC?
General Libutti. I don't know that, sir, but I would be
happy to take that under advisement and get back to you with an
answer.
Senator Levin. Well, there sure as heck ought to be,
because if it relates to foreign intelligence, if you've got
somebody who's a foreign person about whom we have evidence
relative to terrorism, and you've got the FBI that's got
evidence, you've got the CIA that's got evidence, and you've
got local law enforcement that's got evidence, we need a place
where those dots are going to be connected against that person.
This is what we did not have relative to 9/11. That place
relative to foreign terrorists is the CTC, I believe. Now I'm
not here to testify, but I believe that that is where the
principal responsibility lies relative to foreign terrorists.
We've got to know that for sure. We just have to pin this
down because otherwise we're going to have two places that have
very many people in common that are going to both be doing the
same thing, and it means, too often I'm afraid, that one will
be saying that the other one is going to do it rather than us
and we'll be pointing fingers again after the next event. And
that's what we're trying to prevent.
General Libutti. Again, sir, I promise I'll do my homework,
but I would agree with you now, based on limited knowledge,
that CTC is where that is done. That has not been my focus.
Again, it's been on TTIC and my own organization, if confirmed,
and that's been the area of concentration for me.
Senator Levin. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Roberts. I have a few, I guess, pragmatic
questions that follow up Senator Levin's questions in regard to
the TO chart and who has the responsibility. Do your analysts
have access to raw intelligence today pursuant to the
arrangements with the other agencies?
General Libutti. Whatever intelligence information that we
deem appropriate, we should have full access to, yes, sir.
Chairman Roberts. Are your analysts able to independently
pull what they need from all of the agency intelligence
producers to do their analysis or must they request and then
wait for others to push the information to them?
General Libutti. To the best of my knowledge it's the
former. That information is available to us.
Chairman Roberts. Are you satisfied so far that your
analysts can put together a complete and accurate picture of
domestic threats?
General Libutti. The short answer is yes. Let me expand or
amplify on that. Until we have connected the dots or, said
another way, established connective tissue with local law
enforcement and first responders, that will be limited. Now as
an example, if we get information that comes in from whatever
source, is looked at at TTIC, is passed to our guys and it
deals with any of the great cities or small counties in our
country, we will engage with those local law enforcement folks
or appropriate authorities and will work in concert with them.
But my point is, I see that as a vital action that I need
to tackle nearly immediately if we're going to make this thing
work, if I'm confirmed.
Chairman Roberts. Well, that leads to my next question. In
the intelligence community there's a well-structured system in
place intended to protect classified information from leaks or
mishandling. As we're all very painfully aware, the federal
system is imperfect. But no such system exists at all at the
state or local levels, let alone the private sector. How will
your office actually disseminate sensitive threat data yet
protect the classification of that information?
General Libutti. This is a question I wrestled with over
and over when I was in New York, sir. There's no simple answer
if the expectation is that we'll share highly-classified
material, relevant, specific as opposed to general in nature,
with local law enforcement across the country.
Having said that, it is in practice now and I intend to
push it until we get it right, and that is to take classified
information, deal appropriately with sources and methods, make
it law enforcement sensitive and get it to where it needs to go
immediately. I'm talking minutes and hours, not days.
Chairman Roberts. Could the classification system we have
in place at the federal level actually inhibit your ability to
disseminate threat information to first responders?
General Libutti. Again, sir, the short answer is no. The
footnote is that the current system in terms of all of us, in
terms of our responsibility for safeguarding information, that
could be a problem, and we all need to look at that, I think,
very carefully. You can't pass classified information to a
source or across a network that can't handle that
classification.
Most police departments and first responders don't have
that capability. But, having said that, my intention is to make
it work.
Chairman Roberts. Are you going to have fewer analysts in
the IAIP because of TTIC's role as a hub for threat analysis
and integration? Are you going to have enough analysts?
General Libutti. The plan is in place. In terms of TTIC, we
will go from seven now to 14 in July. In terms of analysts
within IAIP and specifically IA, we're at about 50 right now.
Many of them are detailees. But they are on board. We intend to
move that up to 113 in '04 and continue to build our analytical
skill sets.
Chairman Roberts. I'm going to ask Senator Levin's question
except it isn't at the top. How will you avoid duplication of
effort?
General Libutti. In terms of the analytical piece?
Chairman Roberts. Yes.
General Libutti. I think it starts with strong leadership
in defining lanes, holding people accountable and
responsibility, and doing the sixth troop-leading step, which
is supervise their activities. We need hands on to make this
work.
Chairman Roberts. Will state and local officials be
required to obtain security clearances and how will local
police be able to receive and properly disseminate the threat
information to the public?
General Libutti. I think this is again a subject that needs
to be looked at very, very carefully.
Chairman Roberts. As you and I talked before, and we went
through several exercises, one of which I took part in,
perception became reality. Everybody knows with the grandfather
of the exercises in regard to Dark Winter that it was the TV
coverage that panicked everybody to death, literally. So that
is tough, tough question.
But let me get back to the first part of it. To answer the
classified quandary, will state and local officials be required
to obtain security clearances?
General Libutti. I don't think they will be required to. If
you asked me would it be helpful, I would say yes, sir.
Chairman Roberts. I got you. Basically I don't have any
further questions. Senator Levin, Senator Rockefeller.
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. I've got two. One I'm taking
right off of Senator Roberts' question. In order to become
sheriff you have to get elected. You obviously don't go through
any other tests. As far as I know, when they hire they may have
some kind of security or truthfulness measure, but I'm not
aware of any. Are you aware of any in New York City?
General Libutti. Sir, if you will forgive me, could you
please restate your question?
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. Any kind of security or
truthfulness or no problems in their past type of tests?
General Libutti. For hiring of----
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. Of local law enforcement and
first responder types.
General Libutti. Oh, absolutely, yes, sir.
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. How far do they go?
General Libutti. Well, other than the typical background
check, there is a very aggressive questionnaire, follow-up
interviews, cross-check against all records, not only within
New York State but my understanding is across the country. It's
not something I was deeply involved in, but I can tell you,
given the leadership of Commissioner Ray Kelly, we're always
looking for the best and brightest. When we find problems, they
are properly handled.
But, if I may, much like the United States Marine Corps,
we're looking for a few good men and women, and I was extremely
proud to have served for almost a year and a half with the
NYPD. They are high caliber people.
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. I understand that, General. What
I'm thinking of is a very, very rural state like my own, where
there are only 15 communities larger than 5,000 people, and
what it is that those first responders--EMS, law enforcement,
et cetera--go through. I frankly don't know the answer and I
will need to find that out.
The second part of my question was this. To what degree,
for example, on securing our ports, on securing our power
grids, securing our rail lines, et cetera, what of that falls
under your responsibility--not you particularly but the
Homeland Security Department--and, to the extent that there is
no money available for that, if that were to be the case, how
do you go about it?
General Libutti. Well, sir, you are correct in that it's
not principally in my area of responsibility, if confirmed,
with the exception that in terms of my responsibility vis-a-vis
the infrastructure piece, all of which I've already stated, and
the intelligence-sharing piece, it applies not simply to being
a full partner in TTIC and across and out of TTIC with other
intelligence agencies but within the Department.
So my job is to take the lead with my IA piece in keeping
my boss informed and also keeping the other directorates
informed. So in terms of the transportation piece, the TSA
responsibilities focus there. My job is to share intelligence
information with them so they can properly assess the situation
at hand relative to the vulnerability of a port or an air
facility or whatever.
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. Insofar as you are aware, on a
national basis is any of that going on? I mean certainly it was
in your own previous job. I'm thinking, for example, of a
chemical plant. Chemical plants are ordinarily run by plant
managers who ordinarily are under two-year cycles, and they are
usually engineers who don't know a whole lot about security
matters, much less intelligence matters.
What do you do in a situation like that? What kind of
intelligence do you get from them?
General Libutti. Well, again, part of the intelligence
piece ought to come from whatever the situation is with local
law enforcement in and around that facility, or state police,
in terms of eyes and ears on target and providing feedback.
That's one aspect.
My recollection is that there is a law pending that talks
to the responsibility of homeland security to work again in
concert with specifically chemical facilities and go beyond
urging and requesting, but in terms of actionable events, to
work with them, challenge them, evaluate and assess their
activities relative to their status quo, their vulnerabilities
and their risk. I can't recall the name of the proposed law.
It's the Chemical Security Act, I believe. I think that's
critical. I intend to support that 100 percent and, where
necessary, within our own office of Homeland Security reach out
with expertise and advice to support that effect.
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. So that would be a voluntary
thing on their part. In other words, what they felt they
needed, then you would respond to that. Supposing you had a
different view as to what they needed?
General Libutti. I would stay within the limits of the law
and be extremely aggressive about ensuring that they protect
that facility and the people outside that facility, the
community at large. That is indeed the name of the game here.
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. Okay. Thank you.
Chairman Roberts. Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a couple more questions along the same line as we were
talking before. The statement which you say was issued today,
am I correct in believing that that would be a statement which
would clarify the relationship between TTIC and CTC and DHS
relative to intelligence analysis?
General Libutti. It is a response, a letter in response to
Senator Lieberman, to the best of my recollection, sir, and
again I believe it was signed off on today.
Senator Levin. Can you check this issue? Because on May 1 I
requested at Governmental Affairs that Governor Ridge address
that issue because there was some confusion still at that time,
and Chairman Collins at that point seconded the suggestion.
General Libutti. I'd be delighted to check it, sir.
Senator Levin. And Secretary Ridge said that he would get
us that clarification. This may be it today.
General Libutti. Quite frankly and candidly, I guess I took
some liberty on that. It didn't respond directly to you, but
the substance of it----
Senator Levin. Well, that doesn't make any difference
whether it's directly to me or not. The question is whether
it's directed to the issue and, if it is, I don't care who it's
directed to. That's not the issue. At any rate, I just wanted
to see what your understanding was as to what this document is
that was released today.
General Libutti. Staff is telling me that the letter that I
referenced is not indeed the response to your request.
Senator Levin. Okay, could you check or could somebody
check out the status of that? It was a request. It's a very
important issue.
I think we'll all remember the 9/11 inquiry perhaps with
different feelings and reminiscences, but nonetheless it would
be important that you at least get a feel for where there was
really an intelligence failure. Putting aside issues of cause
and whether it contributed to or led to or might have been able
to deter the events of 9/11, that's not what I'm referring to.
I'm just talking about the facts, that you had intelligence
information known to part of our government which was not
shared with another part of our government. The people
responsible to analyze foreign intelligence didn't have all the
intelligence which was available to a number of our agencies.
That is what we're trying to prevent, that crack which can
come either because no one has responsibility or because two
agencies have responsibility. You can get a crack either way.
And if it's real good duplication and backup, you won't get the
crack, but if it's sort of, oh, I thought they were doing it,
no, we thought you were doing it, if that's the end result then
you get the same kind of diffused and confused responsibility.
So we'd appreciate that.
Now, I guess another way to phrase the question is this. If
your office got conflicting terrorist threat analyses, the
office to which you are going to be confirmed got conflicting
terrorist threat analyses from CTC and TTIC, would what happen?
What would you do?
General Libutti. Well, again back to a point I made
earlier, we have a responsibility to do independent analysis,
so the first thing that I would do is bring in the smartest
people on our team. We'd look at the facts supporting the
analysis and deal with that in terms of most probably
connecting directly with the senior leadership in the
organizations that supported the analysis.
I grew up in an environment where commanders were in charge
and responsible. There aren't a lot of people called
``commanders'' in the intelligence business, but there are guys
and folks, gals, who are directors or whatever. I intend to
take immediate action, as appropriate, without either
overreacting or being ungentlemanly, and get to the bottom of
whatever the issues are.
Senator Levin. Well, your experiences I hope will really be
helpful. You've had 35 years of honorable service and great
service to the nation in the Marines and then I guess about a
year and a half recently in New York. It's been notable service
and I think it can make a real contribution to straightening
out this issue.
One final question from me has do with the Freedom of
Information Act and whether or not DHS will be complying with
that Act. There is an exception to that Act, an exemption for
so-called critical infrastructure information. We're trying to
encourage companies to voluntarily share with the DHS
information on a facility's vulnerability to terrorist attacks,
including for key infrastructures, infrastructures such as
roads, utilities, computer grids and chemical plants, much of
which is privately owned. But the law is written in a very
broad way so that it would be very possible for companies to
share information which might be otherwise even available or
which would be shared in order to keep it from regulatory
bodies that otherwise might get to it and require some action
on the part of that company relative to complying with
structural safety laws or what have you.
So we've got, and I would ask you--not today but as one of
the first things that you take on--to look at the Freedom of
Information Act exemption, to check, if you would, with the
lawyers and whoever else might have a view on it. We had a good
bipartisan amendment here which we did not end up offering on
the creation of the DHS for a number of reasons but nonetheless
is still highly relevant. So there's about I don't know how
many Senators have introduced or co-sponsored legislation to
address the breadth of the FOIA language that is in the law,
and we would appreciate your looking at it, taking it up with
Governor Ridge, and getting back to the Committee as to whether
you would support any narrowing of that exemption along the
lines of a bill which has been introduced by a whole bunch of
Senators along the line of the bipartisan amendment which was
prepared at the time DHS was authorized but not offered at that
time. That would be very helpful.
I congratulate you. You will make a real contribution and
you are very much needed.
General Libutti. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Roberts. General, I don't have another question. I
have an observation. I'm concerned, like the Senator from
Michigan and others, about the ability of your directorate to
get the raw intelligence without having to push, pull, demand,
ask, beg for it. You shouldn't have to. A lack of information-
sharing that has already been pointed out by Senator Levin
certainly helped cause
9/11. It cannot happen again. So one of the responses that you
indicated when one of the Senators asked the question on who
you would go to if in fact you found yourself denied raw
intelligence information or had a problem, and obviously said
your boss, you would go directly to Tom Ridge.
And then, not as an afterthought, you added on the
responsibilities of this Committee. We indicated or I indicated
in my opening statement that the telephone is a pretty good way
to do that, or a personal conversation. So I would urge you to
please keep this Committee informed as to the cooperation you
get from CIA, CTC, TTIC and the intel community, and you can be
assured that this Committee will take the issue very seriously.
Now, General, we're going to try to waive the 48-hour rule
on your nomination tomorrow. We have a meeting on a different
matter and a threat briefing, but we're going to try to move
your nomination first thing and approve it so you can get to
work. Thank you for appearing before us, and we welcome your
family as well.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the Committee adjourned.]
COMMITTEE BUSINESS MEETING TO VOTE ON THE NOMINATION OF FRANK LIBUTTI,
LIEUTENANT GENERAL, USMC, RET., TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF HOMELAND
SECURITY FOR INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Select Committee on Intelligence,
Washington, DC.
Committee Members Present: Senators Roberts, Hatch, Bond,
Lott, Snowe, Hagel, Chambliss, Warner, Rockefeller, Levin,
Feinstein, Wyden, Durbin, Bayh, and Mikulski.
Committee Staff Members Present: Bill Duhnke, Staff
Director; Chris Mellon, Minority Staff Director; Rich Douglas,
General Counsel; Kathleen McGhee, Chief Clerk; Jim Barnett,
Randy Bookout, Tom Corcoran, Mike Davidson, Pete Dorn, Melvin
Dubee, Rebecca Farley, Lorenzo Goco, Adam Harris, Jim Hensler,
Chris Jackson, Andy Johnson, Ken Johnson, Mary Pat Lawrence,
Brandon Milhorn, Don Mitchell, Elizabeth O'Reilly, Vera
Redding, Jacqui Russell, Nancy St. Louis, Michael Schafer,
Tracye Winfrey, and Steven Biegun.
Chairman Roberts. The Committee will come to order.
We will begin today's meeting with a motion to close the
proceeding to the public. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 28 of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I move that the remainder of this
meeting shall be closed to the public because the matters to be
discussed will disclose matters necessary to be kept secret in
the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign
relations of the United States.
Is there a second?
Senator Wyden. Second.
Chairman Roberts. I am advised that a roll call vote is
required. The Clerk will call the roll.
Mrs. McGhee. Mr. Hatch.
Senator Hatch. Aye.
Mrs. McGhee. Mr. DeWine.
Chairman Roberts. Aye by proxy.
Mrs. McGhee. Mr. Bond.
Senator Bond. Aye.
Mrs. McGhee. Mr. Lott.
Senator Lott. Aye.
Mrs. McGhee. Ms. Snowe.
Senator Snowe. Aye.
Mrs. McGhee. Mr. Hagel.
Senator Hagel. Aye.
Mrs. McGhee. Mr. Chambliss.
Senator Chambliss. Aye.
Mrs. McGhee. Mr. Warner.
Senator Warner. Aye.
Mrs. McGhee. Mr. Levin.
Senator Levin. Aye.
Mrs. McGhee. Mrs. Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Aye.
Mrs. McGhee. Mr. Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Aye.
Mrs. McGhee. Mr. Durbin.
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. Aye by proxy.
Mrs. McGhee. Mr. Bayh.
Senator Bayh. Aye.
Mrs. McGhee. Mr. Edwards.
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. Aye by proxy.
Mrs. McGhee. Ms. Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Aye.
Mrs. McGhee. Mr. Rockefeller.
Vice Chairman Rockefeller. Aye.
Mrs. McGhee. Mr. Roberts.
Senator Roberts. Aye.
Mrs. McGhee. Seventeen ayes, zero nays.
[Whereupon, the Committee adjourned.]