Letter to Governor Thomas Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton
October 14, 2004
Governor Thomas Kean
Congressman Lee Hamilton
Former Chairman and Vice Chairman
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks
Upon The United States
Washington, D.C.
Dear Governor Kean and Congressman Hamilton:
We wanted to thank you, and the entire 9/11 Commission, for your tireless efforts over the past two years. Your landmark report set in motion a series of sweeping changes in the executive and legislative branches of government that would not have otherwise been possible. The Commission's recommendations for reform have been invaluable in ensuring the country does everything it can to prevent another terrorist attack upon the nation. The American people will long remember the contributions you have made to the country's national security.
As you know, Senators Frist and Daschle asked us to lead a 22-member working group to examine ways to reform the Senate's oversight of intelligence and homeland security matters. We used Section 13.4 of the Commission's report as our guide and focused on two principal questions: (1) how can the Senate strengthen its oversight of intelligence; and (2) how can we consolidate committee jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security, which is now badly fractionalized.
Our goal was to present a series of recommendations to the Senate Majority and Minority Leader and draft a Senate Resolution to implement our recommendations. Our working group met numerous times over a five-week period. We also met with the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the key Committees with jurisdiction over intelligence and homeland security matters. We relied extensively upon the 9/11 Commission report, but we also sought input from the Congressional Research Service, current and former Senators and other outside experts. Your personal advice and input, as we crafted our recommendations, was also extremely valuable.
After weeks of deliberation and study, we presented the full Senate with the recommendations on behalf of the working group. We recommended adoption of almost every proposal set forth in Section 13.4 of the Commission's report. We also recommended implementation of six other reform measures to improve Congressional oversight.
Senators Frist and Daschle accepted these recommendations and subsequently asked us to prepare a Senate Resolution to ensure the recommendations were implemented. This Resolution (S. Res. 445) was introduced by the Senate leadership on Tuesday, October 5th, and after four days of debate, it passed the full Senate on Saturday, October 9th, with wide bi-partisan support. Below we set forth the recommendations of our working group, and the specific aspects of our Resolution in more detail.
Strengthening the Senate Select Committee On Intelligence
We firmly agreed with the finding of the 9/11 Commission that the Congress needs a "strong, stable, and capable congressional committee structure to give America's national intelligence agencies oversight, support and leadership." Real reform and significant change were required, and that is what we set out to achieve.
There was little doubt that the existing Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) should be modified to enhance its ability to effectively oversee the intelligence community. Senators Roberts and Rockefeller have done an admirable job with the resources at their disposal, but they have faced difficult challenges. The executive agencies of the intelligence community are growing, not shrinking. The intelligence budget, the programs and operations undertaken by the intelligence community, and the types of technology used by our intelligence agencies have grown sharply in scope and complexity. Keeping pace with these changes while ensuring adequate oversight and ensuring sufficient checks and balances has been a daunting task for the SSCI.
Therefore, we looked for ways to strengthen this committee so it could exercise effective oversight. Your Commission recommended eight specific measures, all of which were endorsed by our Senate Working Group. These are outlined in more detail below:
1. The Intelligence Committee shall conduct continuing oversight and make regular reports to the Senate. We fully concurred with the Commission recommendation, but we believed the Committee should make more frequent reports to the Senate. Therefore, we amended S. Res. 400 to require quarterly reports to the Senate. We believe a more regular reporting system will improve the flow of key information to other Senators not serving on the Committee.
2. Create a subcommittee on oversight. The Working Group included this recommendation in our Resolution. We also went a step further by specifically noting that the Intelligence Committee may wish to create additional subcommittees beyond the one for oversight. Ultimately such a decision rests with the Committee, and they are empowered to do so pursuant to S. Res. 400.
3. The Intelligence Committee should have subpoena authority. This authority currently exists within S. Res. 400. We believe the Committee should continue to maintain this authority.
4. The majority party's representation should never exceed the minority's representation by more than one member. This proportionality requirement is set forth in S. Res. 400, and we expect the Intelligence Committee to continue to abide by this rule.
5. The Committee should continue to have apportioned member slots for the following committees: Armed Services, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, and Appropriations. S. Res. 400 currently calls for two members from each of these committees to serve on the Intelligence Committee. The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee, as well as the Majority and Minority Leaders, indicated that they would continue to follow this requirement.
6. Eliminate term limits for Intelligence Committee members. Our Resolution included this provision, and we strongly believe this will significantly enhance the attractiveness of the Committee to other members of the Senate. It will also help members to develop greater subject matter expertise in the field of intelligence.
7. The Committee should be reduced in size. Our Resolution called for the Committee to be reduced in size from 17 members to 15. As the Commission noted, we believe this will contribute to each member feeling a greater sense of responsibility and accountability for the Committee's work.
8. The Committee should maintain its non-partisan staff. The SSCI has an excellent staff that has developed years of experience. We believe these dedicated employees should be maintained, as authorized in S. Res. 400.
We also recommended several additional measures not addressed in the Commission's report:
9. The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee will now serve as ex officio (non-voting) members of the Intelligence Committee. The Intelligence Committee and Armed Services Committees often have overlapping areas of interest and jurisdiction. Moreover, the Department of Defense is the single largest producer and consumer of intelligence. Because the distinction between national and tactical intelligence is sometimes ambiguous, we believe it is important for the leadership of the Armed Services Committee to be fully apprised of matters before the Intelligence Committee.
10. We have elevated the status of the Intelligence Committee from a "Select B" committee to a "Select A" committee. "A" committees in the Senate are generally the most prominent, powerful and sought after committees. That is why members are generally limited in the number of "A" committees on which they can serve. The Senate Intelligence Committee is one of the most important committees in the Congress. It deserves to have an "A" standing. Increasing its stature will undoubtedly make it a more attractive committee assignment, and will generate greater interest and competition to be on the Committee.
11. The Majority Leader and Minority Leader will appoint the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee, and both the Chairman and Vice Chairman will serve at the pleasure of the two leaders. This is a significant change from current practice, where the Chairman and Vice Chairman are selected on a seniority basis. We believe the two Senate leaders ought to have direct input on this selection, and have the authority to remove a particular Chairman or Vice Chairman.
12. The Intelligence Committee shall hire additional staff that will be employed by the Committee, but assigned to individual Senators on the Committee. The goal of this recommendation is to help Senators gain familiarity with the complex subject matter and keep up to date with the rapid developments within the intelligence community. Currently, Senators are overburdened by the Intelligence Committee hearing schedule (now averaging three hearings per week), while trying to oversee the intelligence budget and on-going programs and operations. The need for designated staff was articulated by virtually every member of the Committee. We believe these designated professional staff will help members develop an expertise in intelligence matters and strengthen the oversight exercised by the Committee.
13. The Intelligence Committee will now have the final approval authority for reporting out civilian intelligence nominees of the President. This is another significant change from current practice, where the Intelligence Committee is often passed over or ignored with regard to key intelligence nominees. For example, the confirmation of the State Department's Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Research will now be squarely within the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Committee, not the Foreign Relations Committee. This is consistent with the Commission's goal of consolidating intelligence oversight activities in one committee.
Establishment of a New Appropriations Subcommittee on Intelligence
In addition to the 13 recommendations adopted by the Senate Working Group, we took one additional, yet significant, step by creating a new appropriations subcommittee on intelligence. We realize the Commission's Report included two other options (creation of a joint House/Senate Committee or a single committee combining both authorizing and appropriating powers), but we believe this third option will greatly enhance the oversight of intelligence community spending by removing it from the defense subcommittee and bringing greater attention to programs that have been tucked away for far too long.
Establishing a new, fully-staffed appropriations subcommittee on intelligence will increase the scrutiny given to intelligence community spending and will help ensure that appropriations are being executed as authorized by law.
A broad bi-partisan group of Senators supported the creation of an appropriations subcommittee for intelligence. In our view, combining authorizing and appropriating powers in one committee was not only unprecedented and unworkable, it was also unwise. Such consolidated powers, particularly when combined with the additional authorities we provided to the SSCI (e.g., ending term limits, reducing the size of the committee, elevating the profile, etc.), would have resulted in less scrutiny of the intelligence community and fewer checks and balances, not more. A combined authorizing/appropriating committee would have created a potentially dangerous concentration of power and secrecy residing with only a handful of members. We could not understand how oversight would be enhanced in this scenario. Indeed, the Senate resoundingly rejected an amendment (No. 3999) to S. Res. 445 that would have vested intelligence appropriations jurisdiction in the Select Committee on Intelligence. That amendment was defeated by a vote of 23 to 74.
We believe that by creating a new appropriations subcommittee, and giving the Intelligence authorizing committee greater power, the Senate has adopted a framework that will result in far more effective oversight.
We would note additionally that Senator Mikulski raised the idea of an appropriations subcommittee for intelligence during an Intelligence Committee Hearing on September 7, 2004. She specifically asked how the Commission felt about such a subcommittee, in lieu of the combined authorizing/appropriating committee. We understand, Governor Kean, that you said this would be very much in the spirit of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. We are grateful for your candor, Governor, and for your willingness to consider this alternative option. We believe it fully comports with the Commission's interest in strengthening and centralizing oversight.
Consolidation of Homeland Security Oversight
We also want to underscore the important steps we took in consolidating homeland security oversight. While we appreciate that the Commission and the Commission's Report spent far less time on this issue, we did take your recommendation on this subject very seriously. We agree wholeheartedly that the leaders of the Department of Homeland Security should not have to appear before 88 Committees and Subcommittees of the Congress. It is not only administratively burdensome, it is inefficient and results in duplication of effort and weakened oversight. Jurisdiction should be significantly consolidated.
In our Resolution, we call for the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee to assume the principal oversight responsibilities for the Department of Homeland Security. The Committee will be renamed "Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs." Virtually all of the major directorates of the Department of Homeland Security will now be overseen by this new Committee, including the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Directorate, the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, the Science and Technology Directorate, the Management Directorate, and the Office of the Secretary. The Committee will have shared jurisdiction (with the Commerce and Judiciary Committees) over the Border Transportation Security Directorate.
To achieve this consolidation, we had to take jurisdiction away from nine major committees of the Senate. This was extremely difficult, but Senators realized it had to be done. As noted above, there were some committees that retained jurisdiction. We believe we have achieved the kind of consolidation that will dramatically reduce, if not eliminate, the fractionalization and duplication of effort that now exists. The new oversight structure will be focused and centralized, and a vast improvement over the current arrangement. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will be one of the most powerful and sought after committees in the Senate.
We hope this summary has been useful to you. We thought it was important to set out in some detail what the Senate achieved. Obviously, the work of the 9/11 Commission helped make these reforms possible. Without your leadership and support, none of these changes could have occurred.
Again, for all that you have done for the country and for the Congress, we thank you. If you have questions about any of the information presented here, or anything related to the recently passed Senate Resolution, please contact us.
Sincerely,
HARRY REID
U.S. Senator
MITCH McCONNELL
U.S. Senator