Conference Report On H.R. 1, Implementing Recommendations Of The 9/11 Commission Act Of 2007

Floor Speech

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1, IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - July 27, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report, which seeks to ensure that our government fully implements the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. While the Congress has previously enacted the majority of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, several were not addressed during the last Congress. Moreover, in the years since the Department of Homeland Security was created and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 became law, we've learned a number of lessons about how well--or poorly--these reforms have worked. The bill before us is a partial response to those lessons learned.

This bill authorizes robust funding for a variety of homeland security grant programs, including emergency management performance grants, interoperable emergency communications grants, and the Urban Area Security Initiative Grant Program. The bill also mandates more emphasis on a risk-based approach to the awarding of UASI grants, something that I and others in the New Jersey delegation have long advocated.

Improving the department's ability to spot threats and foil attacks before they happen remains a primary concern of all of us in Congress. Those of us who serve on committees that deal with intelligence issues know that the department's intelligence operation suffers from a lack of clout within both the department and the intelligence community as a whole. The bill offers a partial remedy for this problem by reorganizing the department's intelligence operations and elevating the Chief Intelligence Officer from an Assistant Secretary to an Undersecretary--putting that officer on par with his counterpart at the Pentagon.

I agree with the thrust of this reorganization. However, we shouldn't deceive ourselves: rearranging the department's organization chart is no substitute for the President putting forward highly qualified nominees for this and the many other positions at DHS that remain vacant to this day. While I believe this proposed reorganization will help to rationalize and streamline DHS's intelligence management structure, the President must take action to appoint intelligence leaders who are aggressive and focused--and then hold them accountable for their performance or lack thereof.

Another 9/11 Commission recommendation relating to our intelligence operations concerned declassifying how much we spend per year on intelligence activities.

Those who oppose declassifying the overall budget figure claim it would undermine our security. Declassifying the overall budget figure would simply tell the American taxpayer how much of their money is going towards intelligence programs and activities, something they most certainly deserve to know. Declassifying the overall budget figure would in no way compromise intelligence sources or methods. That is why I was disappointed that the conferees elected to include language that allows the President to postpone or even waive the disclosure of the overall intelligence community budget figure by certifying to Congress that such disclosure would damage national security. This was a needless concession to the President and I will seek to have this provision reexamined next year.

Regarding measures Congress can take to improve its oversight of the intelligence community, I was pleased to see that the report indicates that the Senate is considering following the House's lead in this area. Earlier this year and under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, the House passed H. Res. 35, which created the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, which I have the honor of chairing. Our panel contains a mix of members from both the Appropriations Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Our charter is to continuously review the operations of the intelligence community and to recommend changes in policies and funding levels where necessary. We just completed our first such review, and the vast majority of our recommendations were approved by the full Appropriations Committee just this week. If the Senate is looking for a model for how to better coordinate its intelligence oversight work, I would highly recommend that they look at the model we're now using here in the House.

I was also very disappointed to see that the conferees dropped language relating to workers' rights to organize and engage in collective bargaining with the department. Most other Federal workers already have this right, and our failure to ensure our airport screeners are allowed to organize and negotiate for better salaries and benefits is wrong and should be revisited next year.

On a brighter note, the bill significantly enhances the power and status of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), whose creation was another key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.

Currently, the PCLOB is under the direct control of the Executive Office of the President. It has lacked significant funding, something I tried to remedy in the fiscal year 2007 Intelligence Authorization bill by offering an amendment to the bill that would have authorized an annual funding stream of $3 million. Unfortunately, the Republican majority blocked that amendment from coming to the House floor for a vote. This bill solves that problem by authorizing a steady increase in the Board's budget, from $5 million for fiscal year 2008 up to $10 million through fiscal year 2011, and such funds as are necessary from 2012 and beyond.

Another drawback to the current Board is its lack of independence has clearly undermined its ability to act as a true civil liberties watchdog. The bill before us would remove the Board from the EOP and make it an independent agency within the executive branch, and require that all Board members--not just the chairman--be subject to Senate confirmation. The bill also gives the Board real subpoena power, a critical tool for ensuring compliance with the Board's requests for information and testimony from executive branch officials.

Overall, this is a good bill whose enactment would enhance our Nation's security, and it is for that reason that I will vote for it and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source