F.B.I., UNDER OUTSIDE PRESSURE, GETS INSIDE PUSH

WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 - Just two weeks after imploring the F.B.I. to make
counterterrorism its top priority, the director of the agency has warned
his agents in even stronger terms that he will not tolerate "bureaucratic
intransigence" as an obstacle to change.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation's ability to adapt to change "is now
being tested in the extreme," the director, Robert S. Mueller III, wrote in
an internal memorandum on Friday. "Change will be needed in many areas and
needed quickly. Bureaucratic intransigence cannot be an impediment or excuse."

Mr. Mueller's message to employees comes as the bureau is facing stepped-up
pressure from leading members of Congress to shore up its counterterrorism
operations.

Two senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee - Patrick J. Leahy,
Democrat of Vermont, and Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa - wrote to
the Justice Department last week, saying they had serious concerns about
the F.B.I.'s ability to lead the fight against terrorism and about its
treatment of some agents who have voiced criticisms internally. The
senators questioned whether the F.B.I. had been truthful about its progress
in recasting its counterterrorism operation.

And two members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Richard C.
Shelby, Republican of Alabama, and Senator Bob Graham of Florida, the
departing Democratic chairman, expressed concern today about the agency's
ability to recast its mission from traditional law enforcement duties to
intelligence functions.

"I think the F.B.I. is being challenged big time today," Mr. Shelby said on
"Fox News Sunday." "They're moving from a police - a federal police agency
to an intelligence agency. It's a big cultural change."

The complaints of Senators Leahy and Grassley were spurred in part, they
said, by a front-page article in The New York Times on Nov. 21 that
detailed the frustrations of senior F.B.I. officials in getting some field
offices to make counterterrorism their main priority.

The senators demanded access to two memorandums quoted in the article, from
Mr. Mueller and Bruce J. Gebhardt, the deputy director, which the F.B.I.
has refused to give them, as well as any other internal documents dealing
with a "lack of focus" in counterterrorism efforts.

In his memorandum, Mr. Gebhardt told field office chiefs he was "amazed and
astounded" by the failure to commit essential resources to the fight
against terrorism and said they must instill a sense of urgency in their
agents. Mr. Mueller's agencywide memorandum stated unequivocally that
counterterrorism had to be the top priority and that local field offices
could no longer establish distinct agendas.

In his most recent memorandum, a copy of which was obtained by The Times,
Mr. Mueller characterized the effort to refocus the bureau's mission as
"the re-engineering initiative." He said the bureau must work to identify
areas in need of change, make them a priority, pull in senior executives to
accomplish the task, and ensure accountability. Without such an overarching
plan, he wrote, worthwhile ambitions can "end up abandoned in frustration
or done poorly."

Mr. Mueller said that while the F.B.I. faced "a level of new expectations
unprecedented in its history," he was confident that it could meet the high
expectations.

The new push comes seven months after Mr. Mueller announced a
counterterrorism reorganization that included a restructuring of the
management hierarchy at F.B.I. headquarters and a redeployment of some 400
personnel who had been working nonterrorism investigations like narcotics
and white-collar crime. Roughly a quarter of the F.B.I.'s 11,000 agents are
now working counterterrorism, officials say.

But there have been nagging doubts about whether the plan is working.

Members of Congress appeared willing to give Mr. Mueller a lengthy grace
period to put the reorganization plan in place, and many Republicans as
well as senior officials in the Bush administration say they remain
confident Mr. Mueller can get the job done.

A senior Justice Department official said today that while there was
clearly room for improvement in the F.B.I.'s counterterrorism work, "from
our perspective, there's been a huge sea change in how the F.B.I. is
operating in the last year," with several suspected terror cells around the
country disrupted.

But in recent weeks, senior Democrats as well as a few Republicans have
begun to voice increased skepticism about whether the F.B.I. has made
enough progress in its ability to collect and analyze intelligence,
identify terrorism suspects and disrupt possible plots.

Some officials question whether agents trained in solving bank robberies,
kidnappings and drug deals can embrace their new role.

Bush administration officials have even begun to discuss whether there is a
need to create a superagency for domestic intelligence, a move that could
gut the F.B.I.'s existing counterterrorism authority.

Senator Graham said on "Fox News Sunday" that a new organizational
structure was needed.

Mr. Graham pointed to the "fundamental difference" between a law
enforcement agency like the F.B.I., which works to solve crimes that have
already occurred, and an intelligence agency, which works to prevent
crimes. "I don't know whether you can blend those two different cultures
into a single agency," he said.

Law enforcement officials have also floated the idea of closing some of the
F.B.I.'s more than 400 satellite offices, and perhaps even a few of its 56
larger field offices, to move more agents to counterterrorism.

An F.B.I. official who demanded anonymity said that the bureau was
continuing to review staffing and organizational issues as part of the
counterterrorism push but that no plan to close any offices was foreseen.
That official, as well as Congressional officials, noted that any effort to
close a field office would require approval from Congress and would
undoubtedly face stiff opposition from members whose hometown F.B.I.
presence was threatened.

The letter sent Wednesday from Mr. Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, and Mr. Grassley, a ranking Republican, who together wield
significant influence in oversight of the F.B.I., represents the latest
salvo in the stepped-up attacks on the bureau from Congress.

The senators said they were deeply troubled by the apparent contradiction
between the F.B.I.'s internal frustrations over the pace of reforms and its
public pronouncements that it was getting the job done. Mr. Leahy and Mr.
Grassley noted that the Justice Department and the F.B.I. had attacked the
findings of a study by Syracuse University last spring suggesting that the
F.B.I. was devoting as much attention to nonterrorism cases after the Sept.
11 attacks as before. They said internal frustrations at the F.B.I.
appeared to echo the study's findings.

In addition, the senators disclosed that the Justice Department decided
last month to cut the amount of information on F.B.I. cases that it would
make available to researchers at Syracuse as part of their continuing study.

"The answer for the Department and the F.B.I. is to address the legitimate
concerns about their enforcement priorities, not to blind Congress and the
public" by withholding information, the letter said.

Officials at the F.B.I. and the Justice Department said they had not yet
reviewed the letter and could not comment on the concerns raised in it.

In another letter, sent to Mr. Mueller last Tuesday, Mr. Leahy and Mr.
Grassley also criticized the department's handling of a personnel matter
involving a report of retaliation against an F.B.I. unit chief.

The agent, John Roberts, appeared with the F.B.I.'s permission on a "60
Minutes" episode last month. Mr. Roberts said on the program that there was
a perceived double standard at the F.B.I. in its disciplining of senior
officials versus rank-and-file agents, and Congressional officials say that
soon after, supervisors upbraided him in front of other employees because
of his comments. Supervisors also eliminated a position in the F.B.I.'s
ethics units last month after two employees spoke with Congressional
investigators about whether the agency had retaliated against Mr. Roberts,
the senators said.

The ethics staff reduction "contributes to the perception that the F.B.I.
will not tolerate criticism from within its ranks," the senators said. And
they said it came when the bureau needed more ethics staff members, not
fewer, to train new agents who are being granted "greater powers to
investigate American citizens and conduct domestic surveillance."

F.B.I. officials declined to comment on the issues raised in the letter,
and they said the question of retaliation against Mr. Roberts had been
turned over to the Justice Department inspector general.

A senior Justice Department official said today that while there was
clearly room for improvement in the F.B.I.'s counterterrorism work, "from
our perspective, there's been a huge sea change in how the F.B.I. is
operating in the last year," with several suspected terror cells around the
country disrupted.

But in recent weeks, senior Democrats as well as a few Republicans have
begun to voice increased skepticism about whether the F.B.I. has made
enough progress in its ability to collect and analyze intelligence,
identify terrorism suspects and disrupt possible plots.

Some officials question whether agents trained in solving bank robberies,
kidnappings and drug deals can embrace their new role.

Bush administration officials have even begun to discuss whether there is a
need to create a superagency for domestic intelligence, a move that could
gut the F.B.I.'s existing counterterrorism authority.

Senator Graham said on "Fox News Sunday" that a new organizational
structure was needed.

Mr. Graham pointed to the "fundamental difference" between a law
enforcement agency like the F.B.I., which works to solve crimes that have
already occurred, and an intelligence agency, which works to prevent
crimes. "I don't know whether you can blend those two different cultures
into a single agency," he said.

Law enforcement officials have also floated the idea of closing some of the
F.B.I.'s more than 400 satellite offices, and perhaps even a few of its 56
larger field offices, to move more agents to counterterrorism.

An F.B.I. official who demanded anonymity said that the bureau was
continuing to review staffing and organizational issues as part of the
counterterrorism push but that no plan to close any offices was foreseen.
That official, as well as Congressional officials, noted that any effort to
close a field office would require approval from Congress and would
undoubtedly face stiff opposition from members whose hometown F.B.I.
presence was threatened.

The letter sent Wednesday from Mr. Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, and Mr. Grassley, a ranking Republican, who together wield
significant influence in oversight of the F.B.I., represents the latest
salvo in the stepped-up attacks on the bureau from Congress.

The senators said they were deeply troubled by the apparent contradiction
between the F.B.I.'s internal frustrations over the pace of reforms and its
public pronouncements that it was getting the job done. Mr. Leahy and Mr.
Grassley noted that the Justice Department and the F.B.I. had attacked the
findings of a study by Syracuse University last spring suggesting that the
F.B.I. was devoting as much attention to nonterrorism cases after the Sept.
11 attacks as before. They said internal frustrations at the F.B.I.
appeared to echo the study's findings.

In addition, the senators disclosed that the Justice Department decided
last month to cut the amount of information on F.B.I. cases that it would
make available to researchers at Syracuse as part of their continuing study.

"The answer for the Department and the F.B.I. is to address the legitimate
concerns about their enforcement priorities, not to blind Congress and the
public" by withholding information, the letter said.

Officials at the F.B.I. and the Justice Department said they had not yet
reviewed the letter and could not comment on the concerns raised in it.

In another letter, sent to Mr. Mueller last Tuesday, Mr. Leahy and Mr.
Grassley also criticized the department's handling of a personnel matter
involving a report of retaliation against an F.B.I. unit chief.

The agent, John Roberts, appeared with the F.B.I.'s permission on a "60
Minutes" episode last month. Mr. Roberts said on the program that there was
a perceived double standard at the F.B.I. in its disciplining of senior
officials versus rank-and-file agents, and Congressional officials say that
soon after, supervisors upbraided him in front of other employees because
of his comments. Supervisors also eliminated a position in the F.B.I.'s
ethics units last month after two employees spoke with Congressional
investigators about whether the agency had retaliated against Mr. Roberts,
the senators said.

The ethics staff reduction "contributes to the perception that the F.B.I.
will not tolerate criticism from within its ranks," the senators said. And
they said it came when the bureau needed more ethics staff members, not
fewer, to train new agents who are being granted "greater powers to
investigate American citizens and conduct domestic surveillance."

F.B.I. officials declined to comment on the issues raised in the letter,
and they said the question of retaliation against Mr. Roberts had been
turned over to the Justice Department inspector general.