Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in the minute and a half I have remaining, I want to join our distinguished chairman in remembering those people in the defense intelligence community who lost their lives at the Pentagon, indeed all of the people who lost their lives at the Pentagon. Those of us who have had the opportunity to spend any time over there to extend the condolences of this entire Congress and of our own constituents know that the sorrow that we all experienced has moved to resolve. I also wanted to mention John O'Neill, a former FBI special agent in charge of the National Security Division, who lost his life in the World Trade Center attack. His service is well known to many of us in the intelligence community; and we extend condolences to his family, and, indeed, to the families of all who lost their lives, whether it is in planes or in the buildings that were attacked. There have been unimaginable acts of terrorism designed to instill fear in the American people, but the terrorists will not succeed in that. Their behavior is outside the circle of civilized human behavior, and I agree with President Bush that we will bring them to justice or bring justice to them; but justice must be done. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the remainder of my time be a moment of silence in honor of those that lost their lives.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and wish to associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues and thank them for their support of this amendment. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that there will be a number of inquiries into the circumstances surrounding the September 11 terrorist attacks. Committees of the Congress will rightfully conduct some of these inquiries. Elements of the executive branch will conduct others. In the judgment of a majority of the committee, and after the vote was taken, our bill was reported out unanimously, it was important to assure that at least one of these inquiries be as independent as possible of the interests of the departments and agencies whose performance is being assessed. This is not to be an inquiry focused exclusively on the intelligence community. It is to examine across the board the performance of the national security establishment in preventing, preparing and/or responding to acts of terrorism. There is a tremendous concern in the country, great questions about what went terribly wrong on September 11, and the nation was not as prepared as it should have been. Everybody could have been doing his or her job perfectly well, but the lack of coordination or collaboration may be the weakness that we need to find. I think we need to respond to the concerns of the American people in a responsible way, and the independent review as outlined in the bill is the appropriate response. Who appoints this? The President and the leadership of the Senate and the House are to appoint the members of the commission. I have confidence in the President and his intention to appoint two members of the highest quality and independence of thought who will fairly but thoroughly discharge their responsibilities on this. We must focus on the future. That is understandable, desirable, necessary, but I would submit that it is difficult to make wise decisions about future actions unless we understand what worked and what did not in the past. It seems to me that it is even more important in light of the horrific events which occurred on September 11. The unimaginable has now become the predictable. We must look to ourselves to see what exposure we have, what vulnerability we have in the systems, in the agencies that deal with terrorism. I think an independent review is what will give the American people the confidence that they seek, that we are in the best possible position to prevent future attacks. In closing, Mr. Chairman, as I say, we cooperated as fully as possible but would not give up on the issue of independence.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), another valued member of our committee.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), a valued member of our committee. (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I, too, commend the gentleman. The amendment ensures that those CIA employees for whom the Director of Central Intelligence determines that there is a need to carry professional liability insurance, the full cost of that insurance will be borne by the CIA, and as the distinguished chairman mentioned, the determination of the need is left at the discretion of the DCI. The amendment serves a very useful purpose. We accept it as well.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that issues raised by 503 will be addressed in the conference report. With that understanding, I am pleased to agree to the gentleman's amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, we have been joined by two distinguished Members who were in markup. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, in the wake, literally in the wake, of the horrific tragedies of September 11, there are many Members in the body, indeed in the country, who want an independent review of events leading up to September 11 and an evaluation of the performance of the agencies with responsibility for counterterrorism in our country. I have a substitute amendment at the desk which strikes language in the bill in response to some of the concerns raised by our Republican colleagues. The committee position coming to the House today establishes an independent commission to review the appropriate agencies and their performance. There were concerns raised by some on the minority side and others even on the majority, saying that the scope of the commission was too broad, its ability to subpoena, to hold hearings, to grant immunity. Concerns were even expressed by the Justice Department. In the interest of addressing some of the concerns raised by the majority, I am presenting this amendment, which would eliminate some of those powers from the commission, and also reducing the number of people on the commission from 10 to 8, again, addressing the concerns raised. Many of those same provisions are in the Goss amendment. My concern with the Goss amendment and why I continue to persist with mine is that his amendment changes the scope of the commission. Our commission is an assessment of the performance of Federal agencies and departments responsible for the prevention, preparation for, or responses to acts of terrorism. That is what we are proposing. The Goss amendment proposes instead a review of the structural impediments to the collection, analysis and sharing of information on terrorism. That amendment limits the scope of the commission's activities. This would be, in my judgment, unwise. What the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is proposing is a totally reasonable proposal, but I do not think it is a substitute for an independent review. The Goss amendment specifies that persons appointed as members must have substantial Federal law enforcement, intelligence, or military experience, and a security clearance. One of the attributes of section 306, as approved by the committee, with bipartisan support as part of this bill, is that it stresses the desirability for the commission to have members with great independence of judgment. That is what we are offering in our proposal: great independence of judgment, thought, and experience. By requiring prior Federal experience in these areas the Goss amendment virtually guarantees that the commission appointees will be the same insiders that are usually tapped for these kinds of posts. That, to me, seems contrary to the desire for a fresh look at the performance of these departments and agencies which were evident in the committee. So what the Members of this body have to decide is whether we want an independent review of the events preceding September 11 and the performance of the agencies. It is not about fingerpointing, it is not about assigning blame, it is just about trying to prevent such tragedies from happening in the future, and unless we know how we got to where we are now, it seems that it would be more difficult to prevent these kinds of acts of terrorism. I have no problem with the Goss amendment for what it seeks to do. But it is a substitute instead of an addition to what this committee, the Select Committee on Intelligence voted as part of the chairman's mark, and then it was challenged in committee, it survived that challenge, and now comes to the floor. I want to defend the committee's position, but be sensitive to the concerns raised about subpoena power, holding of hearings, and granting of immunity. The amendment strikes those from the bill. My objection is that our approach is preferable in that it is independent and does not turn to the same people who have been involved in all of these activities, reviewing these activities again; thus, depriving them of the independence that we want them to see. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support an independent review, and I hope that they will support my amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Policy and National Security, a new subcommittee of our committee. (Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), just praised by her colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss). She is the ranking member, as was mentioned, on the Working Group on Terrorism and Homeland Security of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), a distinguished member of our committee and a ranking member on the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis). It seems from the remarks of the gentleman there should be some clarification about how events proceeded. We had suggested on the minority side as a result of concerns expressed to us by Members of Congress that there be an independent review. We brought that to the majority side. They accepted that. It was part of the chairman's mark. There was challenge to the chairman's mark in the full committee in which our position prevailed. Again, our bill comes to the floor with an independent review in it. Our chairman had wanted to have Congress work its will and have a debate on this. We do not see anything wrong with having a debate. I do not think there is anything unhealthy or unwholesome about that. The spirit of the debate is to make a distinction between whether we want an independent review of these events and the performance of the agencies or whether we do not? I would like to hear from the chairman on it. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, but this was the wish that the Congress do debate it and work its will and respect the results.

Ms. PELOSI. That is one of the things. There are a couple of points.

Ms. PELOSI. What I am saying is the scope of the review is different. What we are talking about is an independent review by those outside the community, in some cases. The difference between our two bills is the Goss amendment does not have an independent review of the events leading up to or the performance of the agencies. What his amendment does is to say let us go forward, which is a good thing, to analyze the collection, dissemination and sharing of intelligence and that is a very important point. It is not a bad thing. It is just that it is not an independent review. We could do both.

Ms. PELOSI. There is.

Ms. PELOSI. That is correct.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. PELOSI. First, I want to recognize the standing of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) on these issues. He is a former member of the committee and as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, probably knows more, or as much as anyone else. I defer to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) on this issue. We all respect his expertise. The point is in response to the concerns raised by others about the scope of the commission, we made a proposal last night that said we will take out the subpoena power, we will take out the hearing process, we will take out the granting of immunity. But the independence of the commission is something we can not yield on; A, and, B, the scope; how we can collect and disseminate information better in the future is too narrow. We should do that too. But we should not ignore the opportunity to have those people who are not all, according to the Goss amendment, of the community, but rather have some independent thinking on it. So we did try to make accommodations.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the Wolf amendment. As I understand the purpose of the amendment, it is to ensure that the DCI formally responds to the recommendations of the Bremer Commission on Terrorism by indicating which of those recommendations make sense to implement and which do not. As such, a response would be a useful contribution to the work of our Subcommittee on Terrorism; and we are, therefore, pleased as the full committee on the minority side to accept the amendment.