House Democratic Caucus Media Availability - 9/11 Commission Recommendations
Federal News Service August 10, 2004 Tuesday
HEADLINE: HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS MEDIA AVAILABILITY
SUBJECT: 9/11 COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
PARTICIPANTS: HOUSE MINORITY LEADER NANCY PELOSI (D-CA); REP. STENY HOYER (D-MD); REP. JANE HARMAN (D-CA); REP. JIM TURNER (D-TX) REP. ROBERT MENENDEZ (D-NJ); REP. JAMES CLYBURN (D-SC)
BODY:
REP. PELOSI: We were hoping that this meeting would be led by the distinguished chair of the Democratic Caucus, Bob Menendez, who is presiding still at our Democratic meeting. So we will begin with him in spirit, and he will join us momentarily.
As you know, many Democrats converged on Washington, D.C., today, and so we have a full meeting going on downstairs. But what we're here to tell you-as you know, three years ago, nearly three years ago, our country received an attack that was not only physical, it hurt us in so many, many ways. Three weeks ago, the 9/11 commission released its findings and its recommendations. There was time for the House to be in session in order to receive legislation to implement the 9/11 commission recommendations. We asked the speaker for that opportunity, which was rejected.
Today, House Democrats have come from all over the country. We had a briefing from Governor Kean and from-the chair of the commission-and vice chair Lee Hamilton. It was an excellent-it was, I think, historic, really, to hear these two heroes, really, for America present a bipartisan-a bipartisan set of recommendations. And it is in that bipartisan spirit that Democrats will offer legislation to implement the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States-implementing all of the provisions of the 9/11 commission.
If Congress were in session today, we could put this in the hopper. And then committee meetings that would be held could mark up this important mark. Instead, they're just conversations, instead of legislating. And so we were doing that.
Now further, to our goal of making good use of time, the leaders-I've been joined by our distinguished whip, Mr. Hoyer; our chair of the caucus, Mr. Menendez; and our vice chair, Jim Clyburn in sending a letter to the president asking him to call for a special session of Congress so that legislation to implement the commission's recommendations could be introduced.
We would like to have some of the measures in the recommendations in place by the third anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy. There's time to do that in the next three weeks, and those measures that might take longer we know can be done by the adjournment of Congress in October. Unless Congress has a deadline, action will be-not be taken in a timely fashion.
And so, with all of the respect for the bipartisan nature of the commission and its recommendations, I call upon the speaker to join us in a bipartisan way to consider legislation which would implement those recommendations, and call upon the president of the United States to facilitate that by calling a special session of Congress.
Many of the recommendations in here have been considered by the Congress, and we have two very important leaders with us: Congresswoman Jane Harman, who's the senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee; and Congressman Jim Turner, who's the senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee. And recognizing their great leadership and service to our country, I want to yield the floor now to Congresswoman Jane Harman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. PELOSI: Thank you very much.
We've now been joined by our distinguished chair. As I said, he was presiding. He presided over a meeting that we had at the Democratic Convention on the subject of homeland security and the 9/11 commission report. He also was part of a-we had a conference call last week with over a hundred members of our-of our colleagues, and today he held forth at our caucus meeting.
Before we hear from them, however, I'm going to yield to our very distinguished whip, who also was a significant part of organizing today's meeting of Democrats and formulating our approach to this: the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. PELOSI: Thank you, Mr. Hoyer.
As I opened the meeting in appreciation and admiration for the great work of our leader of our caucus, Chairman Menendez. He is presiding over a lively and full house downstairs, so he's not going to be able to stay with us the entire time. Again, in recognition of your service, Mr. Chairman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. PELOSI: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The chairman going back to preside enables us now to hear from the vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus, the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina, who has brought a great deal to this discussion from his vantage point geographically in South Carolina and from his perspective as a leader in our country. Congressman Jim Clyburn of South Carolina.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. PELOSI: Thank you very much, Mr. Clyburn. Thank you very much, Mr. Clyburn.
I thank Congresswoman Harman for her great leadership and Congressman Turner as well. I'm pleased to join our elected leadership of the House.
And what you should know is some of you have asked in advance: why do we have to have a session of Congress? Well, we have to have a session of Congress so that we can formally introduce this legislation, which is the legislative counsel version of this book. Then and only then will Congress be able to act upon the legislation. Instead of having a conversation about the book, we will have successfully legislated and implemented it.
I'll also add that we talked about the tragedy three years ago. We talked about three weeks ago these findings and recommendations coming out. Since then, as you know, the administration and the Department of Homeland Security have said-have raised the alert-the color of the alert. So the urgency is there. And our distinguished chair spoke so eloquently, quoting Mr. Hamilton about the urgency. Nothing is more dangerous than the status quo when we know that there is a predictable threat. So just even if we came into session for one day, it would be important to come in longer so that we can have the focus of the entire country and the entire Congress on this issue. I'm proud that so many of our Democrats came back today. One day, this legislation as the implementation of this book.
Yes, ma'am?
Q Madame Leader, I'm sure you understand there's a great deal of interest surrounding the president's appointment or selection of your colleague, Chairman Goss, for CIA director. And Ms. Harman also, I'd like to get both your reactions to that; not to just him as the selection, but the timing of the announcement and if you in fact think this is the right thing to do in light of the report, with all the recommendations of reorganization, for instance.
REP. PELOSI: I'd be pleased to answer that question about Chairman Goss at the end of this session. But we have-over 100 Democrats came, all over the country, to focus on the 9/11 commission recommendations, and I will get back to your question. So I'd like to focus on that first.
Yes, sir?
Q Last week at a Senate hearing, Senator Lautenberg said that the commission took 18 months to come up with these, and now he's being asked to act within hours. Senator Levin said that he has serious concerns about putting a director of national intelligence in the White House. CIA, FBI and TTIC, Pentagon, intelligence agencies and others have said that this is a good view from 100,000 feet, but there's not much in the way of details, and the devil is in the details.
Given the fact that whatever changes are made are going to be structural and profound, that we are going to live with them for years, and given the fact that nothing that's done structurally is going to have any impact as far as any threats between now and the election, what is the rush, and why shouldn't this just be seen as partisan squabbling on both sides?
REP. PELOSI: Well, first of all, it isn't partisan squabbling. This is a bipartisan report that we invite the speaker to join us in introducing. There is no room for politics in this; 9/11 is sacred and hallowed ground. We owe the families answers, and we owe a reduction of risk to the American people, and that's why we want to start. If you don't have a piece of legislation, you can never begin. Welcome to the Congress of the United States. We can kick this can down the road for a long, long time.
Now, I fully respect the questions that were raised by the distinguished senators, and many of our colleagues have similar questions. But we're saying let us begin. And while having hearings, or supposedly we're having hearings, why have them just be a conversation? Why can't they be a mark-up of a bill? And why can't we have it be as open as possible and transparent as possible so the American people can see that?
Certainly those with turf involved-TTIC, all that you mentioned-will have their own view of it. But this is a bipartisan, comprehensive approach to it which we can review-Congress can work its will on in full view of the public so that what is in there will either be received or not, but the public will know why.
Congresswoman Harman?
REP. HOYER: Can I --
REP. PELOSI: And Steny?
REP. HOYER: Can I make a comment here?
REP. PELOSI: You want to go first? Go first.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Q Madame Leader, if the House were in session right now, the lights were on up there --
REP. PELOSI: Right. Yes,
Q-and you could introduce that, it would go into the hopper and then be referred to committee, then you'd have a couple weeks of hearings. Rright now Kean and Hamilton wrote-they're giving testimony, I've had some Republicans suggest the only reason you're doing this for a practical matter is that your perception-the polls indicate that your numbers could be falling in the area of security, and this would be-one person called it a political stunt, because there's no practical change of what's going on --
REP. PELOSI: No, it's a very big practical change, and you of all people understand how Congress works. If Congress is in session, the legislation can be put in the hopper, and then the committee can act upon it. In fact, I would hope that the speaker would put together a special committee to mark up the bill so it doesn't have to be referred to so many committees. So the difference between having a bill to mark up in committee and no bill to mark up in committee is the difference in changing public policy, making the American people safer, and giving some comfort to the families of those who lost their loved ones in 9/11.
You have a question?
REP. HOYER: Can I make a comment on that? Some of you who have joined me in the (Pen and Pad ?) know this Congress has met fewer days than any Congress in recent memory. I've pointed out initially that we don't have many days left until we break for the election. And we need to break for the election, even if it's as late as October 20th. We have not passed most-almost all of the appropriation bills. They need to be passed, or something that continues government and operation needs to be passed. Therefore, there are very few days remaining. What those Republicans who are accusing this of being a political stunt, is they're not looking at the calendar. They're not looking at the days left for us to consider serious matters of concern to the safety of the American public and to the operations of their government. Therefore, if we do not use these days, we will not regain them, and we will delay doing what the commission unanimously believes is necessary to do promptly.
Q Does the bill you're proposing include the restructuring of the congressional oversight of intelligence agencies?
REP. PELOSI: This implements everything that is in here.
Q What structure do you --
REP. PELOSI: Well, we have very-we have other-the Homeland Security Subcommittee, the Democrats on the committee have fleshed out proposals that match what is in here, as does the Harman legislation in terms of intelligence. The issue of restructuring the oversight of Congress will be a larger issue that we should move expeditiously on, but the level of specificity is not contained in this bill except to get on with it, to get on with it.
My view is it would be political not to act. We have a responsibility to the American people to provide for the common defense, to protect them against the clear and present danger of terrorism which we have been told over and over again is an urgent threat. So I think the question should be asked of the Republicans, how can you take a six-week vacation from Congress when we have been warned by the administration and the Homeland Security Committee, when we've been warned by the 9/11 commission that it is urgent, that it is imminent, and that it is timely in terms of the political events that will occur between now and November.
Q Does it also include the end to the secrecy about the amount of the budget?
REP. PELOSI: Yes. It contains what it is in here. It contains what's in here. And to the extent that this is silent, we can in the legislative process have proposals, which over and over again have been rejected by the Republicans but which have been consistent with this report. We will not allow this report to gather dust or be shredded by those who are unwilling to act upon it for reasons of congressional inertia, which is legendary, or turf.
Q Madame Leader?
REP. PELOSI: Yes?
Q One of the criticisms from the 9/11 commission was about the way aviation security has been handled, in particular the fact that cargo is not being screened on our commercial -- (off mike). Democrats have tried repeatedly in this Congress to get some sort of legislation through. What does that bill do? What does your bill do?
REP. PELOSI: Well again, that would be the level of specificity that we would get into that Mr. Turner-in fact, I could defer to him to respond to that because he has put forth a wonderful document that shows all of the attempts on the part of some of us here to implement in advance of this report.
REP. TURNER: We do have a multipage document that catalogues all of the efforts that we as Democrats have made to close our security gaps that we know are there. We obviously would incorporate Mr. Markey's legislation, which we fought repeatedly to try to get into law. But we have a whole list of items that give meat to the bones of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission.
And so what we really need to do-as our leader says, we need to get back here, we need to start the markups, we need to have these proposals on the table, and let's have an up-or-down vote, and let's see where we come out. I mean, the difficulty, frankly, that we've had on the Homeland Security Committee is having the opportunity to lay out our legislative agenda and to have an up-or-down vote on it.
And I agree with the leader. The political side of this is to do nothing. Political side is to say, "Oh, we've got-we've done it all. We're going to be fine. You know, we're going after those terrorists. We're-we've got all this information now, and we're going after it."
The 9/11 commission is an indictment of the leadership that we've had in this country over the last three years, and you can't read it any other way. The comprehensive nature of those recommendations require us to act, and all we're saying is, we're here to act, because it's important for the security and safety of the American people.
Jessie?
Q Ms. Pelosi --
Q Excuse me. You mentioned over a hundred attending. How many exactly, or more or less exactly?
REP. PELOSI: It's very cozy in there and packed and jammed. I haven't counted, but every seat is filled and then some. So we have over a hundred. I don't know exact --
REP. HOYER: It's also difficult, because they're in and out.
REP. PELOSI: They're in and out.
But let me say this. We were very pleased because at the convention members took time to come to a meeting where Congressman Turner --
REP. : (Off mike.)
REP. PELOSI: -- Mr. Menendez presided, of course, as the chair of the caucus, but Congressman Turner made his presentation. Congressman Harman -- -woman Harman was called away to be campaigning with our presidential candidate, Congressman Kerry, but-Senator Kerry, but Congresswoman Eshoo made the presentation on the intelligence. We had a large number there. We had a large number on a conference call. The Democrats are focused on our national security. We know that the Republicans care about this. We want the public to see that focus in a tangible way, by stopping the vacation --
Q Senator Kerry asked the president to call Congress back into session.
REP. PELOSI: Right.
Q He said no. What good does it do to make another suggestion --
REP. PELOSI: Well, because the president says no-I mean, for three years the president's been saying no. Nine-11 happened in 2001. We'll soon be observing the third-year anniversary of that tragedy in our country. Many of these recommendations could have been put into effect since then. The question is not whether we should have a special session. The question is, why hasn't it happened in the last three years, as our distinguished whip said earlier.
So let's not try-find reasons why we should stay home, we shouldn't come here, and we shouldn't do this and this. We have a responsibility. We have a job to do. The question is, why aren't we here doing it? The question is not why are you here to do it.
And so we would hope that by the time we observe the three-year anniversary, we can have something to show for the concern and the ideas that we have and that the 9/11 commission has given us a bipartisan, unanimous road map to cover.
Yes, sir?
Q Ms. Pelosi --
REP. HOYER: (Helen ?), also if I can add, some of us don't believe because the president says no that that's dispositive of the issue.
REP. PELOSI: (Chuckles.)
REP. HOYER: We have a responsibility of our own --
REP. PELOSI: That's right.
REP. HOYER: -- and we are calling for this session because we think it's important for the American people.
REP. CLYBURN: And I think that's been-if I may, I think that's been demonstrated time and time again. The president first said no to Homeland Security, but we now have it.
REP. PELOSI: And it-right.
REP. CLYBURN: And then the president said no to the commission itself, and thanks to our leader we now have it. And because he is saying no now does not mean our leader won't get it.
REP. HOYER: And he said no and the speaker said no to the extension of the deadline for this commission, and Governor Kean today said if that extension had not been granted, they could not have done their work.
REP. PELOSI: Yeah.
REP. CLYBURN: Absolutely.
REP. PELOSI: And may I just say also --
REP. HOYER: And, Ms. Pelosi, I want to say-she can't say this, but the leader --
Q Step to the mike, please.
REP. HOYER: -- the leader kept saying that we need to extend. Mr. Hastert said no. The president said, well, he was for extending it, but didn't do anything. And we kept asking for the extension. And finally the extension was granted and, as I said, Governor Kean said but for that extension they couldn't have done their job. So when you ask, why do we ask to continue to ask? Because we believe it's the right thing to do.
Q Did any of you ask Kean or Hamilton their position on a special session?
REP. PELOSI: The-let me-let me just say this because they-they have-they act as a commission, so it's not a question of asking individual opinion on something. But I want-I just want to make this point.
Under the adjournment resolution that was passed as we left Congress, the speaker has the ability to call the House back into session without any intervention from the president of the United States. When I asked for that, the speaker said no-I mean, well, we got no response, so that was effectively a no. And then, as a reaction to the negative reaction to that, the speaker then put these hearings in place, but they are no substitute for a markup on a bill. They are no substitute for that.
So the-the question is not why should we come back; that seems to be self-evident. We have work to do to protect the American people.
Q Madame Leader, didn't you --
REP. HARMAN: If I could just add one more thing to that, we are back. The House Armed Services Committee is holding a hearing right now. The House Intelligence Committee will hold its second hearing tomorrow and its third next Wednesday and its fourth two weeks from now. So there are Republicans and Democrats who are back, and they're all hearing-the Republicans are hearing the same thing we're hearing, which is when is this going to happen?
And therefore, I believe, regardless of what the president says-although I think it is his responsibility to step up and be specific about the fact that he wants legislation to pass and what should be in that legislation. Regardless of what he says, I think we're about to be hit by a tsunami, and I think that Congress will be back, and Congress will act.
And all of us are saying that a very thoughtful piece of work is in my book-that the leader is trying to pilfer -- (laughter) -- a very thoughtful piece of work is in here; it's the result of thousands-millions of pages of testimony, and thousands, hundreds of thousands of hours of work. It is a bipartisan product. It builds on 50 years of history, and now is the time.
REP. PELOSI: Unless there are any other questions --
Q Ms. Pelosi?
REP. PELOSI: Yeah?
Q A lot of the recommendations in the September 11th commission deal with internal congressional structure, which would be accomplished through rules rather than legislation. If you were the speaker, which of the recommendations would you attempt to implement in your rules package, and which do you think you could actually get accomplished?
REP. PELOSI: Well, when I am speaker, we will address that issue. But whoever the speaker is has to do it. And that's not about something we would talk about here and now in the nitty gritty of it, but in a larger sense, to enlarge the issue. What Congress must do is have real-real-oversight over the Intelligence Committee, and certainly we will have a discussion as to which committees will-whether it be an appropriating and an authorizing committee, but the law now says that nothing that is not authorized by the committee of authorization, the intel committee, can be appropriated. That has been neglected in the supplementals, but we would visit those issues in a very careful way. But we would visit them, and they would be part of a rules package for the new Congress in January, which is as soon as that could be done.
Q Does that mean you're not sure which ones you personally support, or are you not sure which things you could actually get through --
REP. PELOSI: No, I'm saying that they were not as specific as you indicate there. There has to be some fleshing out of it, and we may have more that we would want to add. But it's only about one thing: tough, real oversight so that Congress has an accountability for this, and the administration has to understand that Congress will exercise that oversight. And there has to be no politics involved in it. Whether it's a Democratic Congress and a Democratic White House, or some different variation on that, there has to be the same tough oversight of the intelligence.
Q Leader Pelosi, should Chairman Goss recuse himself from hearings on the 9/11 commission report while working on legislation implementing those recommendations?
REP. PELOSI: But I would get back-if we're going to change the subject now, we'll get back to your question.
Q Yeah, let's do that.
REP. PELOSI: Yeah. (Laughs, laughter.) Because we have to get back to our --
REP. : (That's passive voice ?).
REP. PELOSI: -- very large meeting downstairs.
As you know, my views on Mr. Goss' being the director of Central Intelligence are probably well known to you. But that was in speculation. Now that the president has named him, it is a matter for the U.S. Senate to consider, and I'm sure they'll give his record a careful review.
I think it's interesting, the timing of it. Of course, we think it's very important, when over a hundred Democrats come to Washington D.C. to focus on our national security, that that would be the day of days that the president would make this recommendation. But let's assume that I'm giving us too much importance in the president's eyes and say it's also curious that the president would appoint someone to a job that the 9/11 commission is now saying should be revamped and practically doesn't exist in its current form, if you're looking to being effective in protecting the American people. So my view is that let the Senate proceed with what they are doing. I think the one important thing about intelligence, as I just said in my previous answer, is you must keep the politics out of intelligence. I'm not sure that that has been done to this point in this recommendation.
Congresswoman Harman?
Q If I could just follow before Ms. Harman takes the podium --
REP. PELOSI: Yeah.
Q-your personal views. You've been on Intelligence, you've worked with him --
REP. PELOSI: Yes. Yes.
Q-is he the right man for this job, or should we be doing something completely different?
REP. PELOSI: I'll say that-as I said, when the speculation was there that he might be appointed, I made my views known about Mr. Goss's qualification.
Q If we could get you on the record today, now --
REP. PELOSI: Well-but now that it has been-and now that the nomination, I guess, is what you would call it, has been made, this'll be in the hands of the United States Senate. We don't have a role in that confirmation. But I will say what I said before, is that there shouldn't-a person should not be the director of Central Intelligence who's active in a very political way when we're dealing with the safety of the American people. Intelligence has to be the gathering, the analysis and the dissemination of information, of intelligence without any political-any politics involved at all.
Q Do you think Chairman Goss can take away the-be nonpartisan when dealing with it and being a DCI? That's for both of you.
REP. PELOSI: Why don't you take that one, because we -- (laughs.)
REP. HARMAN: Okay.
Well, first of all, the White-the first I knew about this appointment was this morning when the White House called me at home early in the morning, and I have subsequently spoken to Senator Rockefeller about it, but I have not spoken to Mr. Goss. And maybe the leader has, but I have not. We have a hearing scheduled tomorrow, as you know, where Kean and Hamilton are appearing. And I-so far as I know, he will plan to be there.
It is a Senate responsibility to confirm a nomination of the president. And it's the president's prerogative to nominate the person he thinks will be qualified.
But I would just say, about the next months, that I don't think they're about Mr. Goss and whether he is or is not confirmed; I think they're about whether this White House will step up to admit the mistakes that have been made in our intelligence system across the board and fix the problems that have been clearly identified. It's time to talk about that; it's not time for a national debate about Mr. Goss. The Senate, I'm sure, will conduct hearings as appropriate.
But what I think the country wants to know is whether or not Congress takes this seriously; whether or not Congress will come back to act on legislation that has been very responsibly drafted by Leader Pelosi and the House leadership here; whether or not, on a bipartisan basis, members of Congress will step up and support the recommendations or help in fine-tuning them so that they're even better. And that's how we're going to be measured on Election Day.
And I thought this morning when the president made his nomination of Mr. Goss, he missed an opportunity to talk again in much more detail than he did last week about his commitment to the 9/11 commission recommendations and specifically what he is going to do to get his administration-with three Cabinet secretaries opposed to these recommendations, and this Congress with Republican leadership not acting on these recommendations-behind it.
Q Do you think he should preside tomorrow?
REP. HARMAN: Well, it's been a tradition here that people remain here until they're confirmed for executive positions. I think that the administration has said it supports these recommendations. I haven't heard Mr. Goss specifically say that. So it will be interesting to see what he says tomorrow.
Q But should he recuse himself from the work on the 9/11 commission report and recommendations? Should he be able to continue to chair hearings? Should he be able to continue to work on legislation reforming the intelligence community -- (off mike)?
REP. HARMAN: I think that that's a judgment he'll have to make in consultation with Speaker Hastert. What I do hope, though, is that he and the White House now step up to act on these excellent recommendations.
REP. PELOSI: Thank you very much, Congresswoman Harman. That is the point. It isn't about subterfuge, it isn't about distraction, it isn't about division; it's about joining together to pass the bipartisan unanimous report of the committee.
And I just want to clear up one thing. We didn't put this legislation together, Leg Counsel did, right from this book. So this is something that could also in this House be a bipartisan-and in this Congress a bipartisan legislation. We invite the Republican leadership and members to join us in that.
We thank all of you for being with us. And I commend my colleagues for their exceptional leadership.
We have to get back for our colleagues who have come from all across the country to focus on the important issue of national security. Thank you very much.
REP. HOYER: The over 100 (that we're meeting ?). (Laughter.)