9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act

9/11 RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT -- (Extensions of Remarks - October 11, 2004)

The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 10) to provide for reform of the intelligence community, terrorism prevention and prosecution, border security, and international cooperation and coordination, and for other purposes:

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, after the horrific attacks of September 11, Americans understand the significance and seriousness of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. Developed in a bipartisan manner after long study and debate, the recommendations (if implemented) would radically reorganize the intelligence community and unify government efforts to prevent future terrorist attacks. Of course, once the depth of the failure of our intelligence agencies became clear after 9-11, many of us recognized the need for such reform. The question Congress asked the 9-11 Commission to answer was-how?

We got an answer in the form of the 9-11 Commission report. The Commission put forth forty-one in depth recommendations to serve as a proposed blueprint for intelligence reform. While I believe Congress should not necessarily rubber-stamp the Commission's work, I also believe that we should honor the bipartisan spirit of the Commission by working in a similarly bipartisan way to reach agreement on the best way to implement the recommendations.

That is what has been so deeply disappointing about the process in the House. While the Senate-through an open and deliberative process-reached agreement on a substantive bill that reflects the views of both parties, the Commission, and the families of 9-11 victims, the House has played shameful politics with intelligence reform.

The Republican bill (H.R. 10) only fully implements eleven of the 41 recommendations of the 9-11 Commission, while it ignores some of the most important Commission recommendations. For instance, it fails to give the National Intelligence Director sufficient authority over the budgets and personnel of intelligence agencies. It fails to include a strong National Counterterrorism Center. It fails to strengthen the Nunn-Lugar programs and other nonproliferation programs to secure nuclear materials around the world. It fails to create an integrated border screening system to improve security at our borders. It fails to improve communications for first responders. It fails to create a government-wide Civil Liberties Oversight Board to review the use of intelligence powers and address civil liberties concerns. The list goes on.

Meanwhile, the bill includes dozens of extraneous provisions that the Commission did not recommend and that are opposed by the Commission, families of 9-11 victims, human rights and civil liberties groups, and some by the White House itself. The provisions include new authority allowing the President to completely undo the intelligence reforms passed by Congress, expedited removal of undocumented immigrants without judicial review, revocation of visas, exceptions to the UN Convention Against Torture, and allowing the U.S. government to spy on individuals without proving they are connected to a foreign government or terrorist group, among others.

These extraneous provisions aren't just objectionable because of their content-they are objectionable because at a time when we most need to think of country before politics, to find ways to come together to make our country safer, not ways to further divide us, the Republican leadership is more interested in scoring political points than in passing responsible legislation.

Even so, I am voting for H.R. 10 today because I believe that we need intelligence reform. This bill does not go far enough to protect the American people, but it is better than no reform at all. The good news is that the Senate-by a 96-2 vote-produced a bipartisan bill that should help strengthen the Senate's hand (and the voice of reason) in the conference committee. With the President supporting the Senate bill and every Republican in the Senate voting for it, it seems to me that House Republicans' misguided criticisms of the bill in conference won't carry much weight.

I am optimistic that the conference report will more closely reflect the Senate bill. As 9/11 Commissioners Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton wrote in the Washington Post last month, "We should not wait until another [intelligence] failure takes place, until another commission has a task as somber as ours. We welcome refinements to our recommendations through the legislative process. But the time has come to act."

H.R. 10 is not the legislative refinement Commissioners Kean and Hamilton had in mind, nor is it mine. But it is a start. As the legislative process continues, I will do all I can to help move the bill in the right direction. I hope my colleagues across the aisle will do the same. At a time when our security is at risk, Congress must set politics aside and pass intelligence reform legislation that will truly make America safer.