Press Conference - Intelligence Reorganization Legislation
Federal News Service
HEADLINE: PRESS CONFERENCE RE: INTELLIGENCE REORGANIZATION LEGISLATION
WITH: REPRESENTATIVE PETER HOEKSTRA (R-MI); REPRESENTATIVE JANE HARMAN (D-CA); SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME); AND SENATOR JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D-CT)
LOCATION: SENATE RADIO/TV GALLERY, THE CAPITOL, WASHINGTON, D.C.
BODY:
REP. HOEKSTRA: Good afternoon. I'm Congressman Pete Hoekstra from Michigan. I chair the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and I'm also responsible for chairing the conference committee to resolve the differences between the House and the Senate on the intelligence reform legislation that both chambers passed roughly two weeks ago.
There have been lots of questions about the progress and what we've been doing since the conference convened for the first time on Wednesday. On Wednesday I had indicated that there would be an offer coming from the House side. We've had discussions of whether that's a chairman's mark or whether it's a Republican's mark, or whatever. It is a chairman's mark that is fully supported and embraced by my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle.
What we've been doing for the last 48 hours is that we have been in continual negotiations and meetings with really the four of us and our staffs, and other members have been brought in to work on various pieces of the bill. So this offer will be coming forward this afternoon to my other colleagues and to the conferees today. It does not mean that we have agreement, all right?
What we did is we took the last 48 hours of input to move this process forward as far as we could, memorialized it in black and white so that everyone could see what my interpretation was of where I thought we were, recognizing that we do not have full agreement on all areas, and recognizing that we still have some very contentious issues and that we still have some differences to work through. We are going to continue working through the weekend. Our staffs are going to continue working through the weekend to see exactly how much progress we can get over the next 48 hours.
We will initially be submitting Title 1; we'll be bringing that forward. But we're also continuing to work on Titles 2 through 5. In many cases there's been a lot more negotiations-not negotiations, but there's been a lot more progress made in those areas, and in some of those cases the discussions are beyond where the paper is. So we are-you know, we're having the discussions, the negotiations; that's moving forward, but we also have to move the paper forward. And so I would expect that, you know, in a relatively short period of time we will also be moving forward a proposal or an offer on Titles 2 through 5.
What do I expect to happen with this? I do not expect my three colleagues to embrace this, all right?
I fully expect that there will be areas where they come back and they will say, you know, "That's significant movement. That reflects exactly what we have talked about over the last 48 hours." In other areas, I expect them to come back and say, "Pete, I thought we talked about this, but I thought that we were going somewhere else. Did we not have clarity on what we had agreed to?" And in other areas, it will be, "Pete, we went through this process as we identified where we had disagreements. We now more clearly understand where the disagreements are because it is here on black and white, and it will give us an opportunity to respond to what you have actually put down on paper." So there is-there is progress, but it would be unrealistic to say that there was not sufficient work that still needed to be done.
All right. With that, I will turn it over to my colleague, Susan Collins.
SEN. COLLINS: Thank you.
First, I want to thank each of my colleagues here for their very hard work on this conference. This is a very complex bill, and the House and the Senate took different approaches. Therefore, it's not surprising that it would take a lot of work to get the many differences resolved. But my message is that everybody is working in good faith. Each of us is committed to getting a bill to the president, and we hope that we can do so before the election. That's a very ambitious goal, but it's one that we're still working toward.
I want to thank Congressman Hoekstra for moving the process along by sending us an offer this afternoon. I'm sure it will be a good- faith offer. I'm also sure that it is very likely that we will choose to submit a counter-offer. But that is what the process is all about, and again, my three colleagues have worked so hard. And I am still very hopeful that we can get this much-needed, significant reform to the president as soon as possible.
REP. HARMAN: I'm Congresswoman Jane Harman from California, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. I, too, remain hopeful, although the clock is running out to get action before the election. I also am pessimistic that after the election we'll have the momentum that we have now.
I want to thank my chairman, Pete Hoekstra, for doing two things since our conference that have given me encouragement.
One is I had urged, along with the other House Democratic conferees, that we hold a public session today. And he agreed to do that, and I thank Senators Collins and Lieberman for agreeing to do it as well.
The second is I expressed some concern at our conference meeting that the House Republican offer was being developed and transmitted without any consultation with the House minority. Since then there has been some consultation, and Congressman Bob Menendez, who is sitting right in front of us and who is --
REP. ROBERT MENENDEZ (D-NJ): Posing as a reporter. (Laughter.)
REP. HARMAN: -- and, as one of the House conferees, has been instrumental in --
SEN. COLLINS: (Laughter.) Don't call on him.
REP. HARMAN: -- moving the ball forward on the Title 3 immigration language in H.R. 10. And I am pleased that we were invited to be part of this, and I'm very impressed with the suggestions that he's made, and I hope that they will be seriously entertained by the House majority and ultimately by the conference when we come to agreement. But also there have been conversations about Title 1, which is, as everybody understands, a-the major focus and the major deal-breaker in the legislation.
I'd just like to say about that that that the House Democrats strongly support the Senate bill. We strongly support the 9/11 commission letter that was issued subsequent to action on the Senate bill, and in the House we all voted for the Menendez substitute, which was in essence the Senate bill. And I certainly hope that, in the next several days, we'll be able to come to agreement to something very close to the Senate bill.
I think that will be a win-win-win. It will be a win for the public and the 9/11 families, a win for the Senate under the leadership of Senators Collins and Lieberman. I think it will be a win for those in the House who have wanted a strong bill, and I also, frankly, think it will be, if they're able to help achieve the victory, a win for the White House, which needs to stay extremely active. There has to be strong presidential leadership here if we're ever to get across the finish line.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Thanks, Jane. Real briefly, I agree with everything all my colleagues have said.
First, thanks to Pete Hoekstra for chairing this conference in a very inclusive and fair way. And clearly the four of us, and I'd say every member of the conference, but the four of us have been spending a lot of time. We want to get a good bill. We understand that this is a matter of urgent national security interest, and the sooner we can get a good bill the better. But we're not going to settle for a bill that's less than good, and that's why we've been working so hard.
And I take the liberty to say, to answer a question, why did it take so long to get to this point? I think Congressman Hoekstra wanted to make sure that he could make an offer to the Senate that was on behalf of the House Republicans on the conference committee and it was, if I can put it this way, a credible offer that would be an ice- breaker. We haven't seen it yet. We will this afternoon.
But I'm confident that that is exactly what we're going to see.
We've also talked enough with one another and with other conferees to guess that it will not ultimately be acceptable to the Senate. There are very strong feelings about a narrow focus on Title 1. Title 1 is the title that deals with the national intelligence director and the national counterterrorism center. These are the two top recommendations of the 9/11 commission.
In each house, there are some people with very strong feelings, and again, not on a partisan -- (chuckles) -- basis, just on their particular feelings. And we've got some work yet to do. I don't want to be-I mean, I'm by nature an optimist, but it's clear from the last few days we got a lot of work to do yet to get to a point where we can have an agreement in the conference, but we're going to work.
The Senate will accept the-receive the offer this afternoon. We've just met with our bipartisan Senate conferees. We're going to work on it the rest of the day, tomorrow and hope to have a response in the nature of a counter-offer sometime over the weekend. Thank you.
REP. HOEKSTRA: Good.
Yes?
Q I wanted to ask Senators Collins and Lieberman. You have always stressed through this process you need to have a strong NID; you don't want to create a NID who is not effective. Is that still your position? Do you still believe that this person must be strong to be effective?
SEN. COLLINS: Absolutely. I continue to believe that if you create a new national intelligence director that lacks the budgetary, personnel and other authorities necessary to do the job effectively, all you're doing is creating another layer of bureaucracy. So this is an extraordinarily pivotal issue for, I believe, all of the Senate conferees. We must have a national intelligence director with the ability to marshal the people, the funds and the resources to counter the threats that our country faces. And I would note that the White House also, as well as the 9/11 commission, has endorsed that position.
REP. HARMAN: And that is also the position of the House minority conferees. We voted for it in the House when we voted for the Menendez substitute.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Yeah. And it's fair to say that this is exactly what we have been debating. I mean, there's a lot of points of disagreement in the bill, but we all agreed that if can't agree on this central question about the strength of a new national intelligence director, and the conclusion that the 9/11 commission and the Senate made on a bipartisan basis that you can't have a strong intelligence director who doesn't have strong, independent budget authority, that's what the most difficult debates have been about the last couple of days, and they'll probably go on.
REP. HOEKSTRA: Let me just add, "Me too"-okay? -- (laughter) -- for the House Republican Conference. All right? I mean, this is a construct and a negotiation not about a weak NID and a strong NID, it is about the construction and the understanding in the agreement that I think we are unified in, that a strong NID is better-or that a weak NID is not an alternative, all right? That a weak NID may do more damage than harm-may do more harm than good. And so it is about constructing a strong national intelligence director to provide the leadership to the intelligence community that we all feel is needed.
Q So, Congressman Hoekstra, does that mean --
REP. HOEKSTRA: (Correcting pronunciation) "Hook"-"Hook- stra."
Q Hoekstra.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: We've all heard that in this conference.
REP. HOEKSTRA: We prefer you not to use the president's version of the name, okay? So -- (laughter) --
Q I shall use the House version!
REP. HOEKSTRA: Hey, thank you. And the Senate version! We're agreed on this, yeah! (Laughter.)
Q Congressman Hoekstra -- (mispronouncing the name again) --
REP. HOEKSTRA: "Hook" --
Q Hoekstra. I'll get it-I'll get it on when I'm on the air.
SEN. COLLINS: Like a "fishhook."
REP. HOEKSTRA: Yeah.
Q Does that mean, then, that the House profer that the Senate is now going to look at does contain modifications on the NID and on the terror-so-called terror provisions; that is to say the possibility of deporting suspected terror people or the expanded wiretaps, which are anathema to Democrats?
REP. HOEKSTRA: Let's say a couple of things. Number one, it does have different language and expanded language on the NID. There have been a couple-not a couple-there have been ongoing discussions on Title 3 where some of the other provisions that you have referenced, where some of those things have been highlighted, that has been shared with our Democratic colleagues in the House who have provided us with some feedback on that. That part has not yet gone to the Senate for them to see where we are at, for them to give us feedback on that. But the offer that they will receive on Titles 2 through 5 later will have changes in it from the original House version, yes.
Q Could you perhaps enlighten us on some of those changes?
REP. HOEKSTRA: I wouldn't at this time, no. I mean, the --
SEN. LIEBERMAN: I think he just gave you the hook. (Laughter.)
REP. HOEKSTRA: Yeah.
REP. HARMAN: But I would like to make clear that we have proposed alternative language to Title III-the Democratic conferees in the House-which we think will be much better policy than the present language. We oppose the present language. We're all for stronger border controls and security measures at the border, but we feel that a lot of these extraneous provisions have to be removed.
Q Can you be more specific about whether the 9/11 commission's letter on separating that stuff out has had an impact on the deliberations, what role the letter played?
REP. HOEKSTRA: Well, I think the-there have been a lot-there's been a lot of input that we have factored in over the last couple of days and over the last couple of weeks. Obviously we've gotten the letters from-or the letter from the 9/11 commission. We have gotten the correspondence and intense meetings with the White House over the last 48 days. I have met with some of the 9/11 families.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Forty-eight hours.
REP. HOEKSTRA: Forty-eight-yeah, excuse me --
SEN. LIEBERMAN: (Off mike) -- 48 --
Q It feels --
REP. HARMAN: It feels like 48 days.
REP. HOEKSTRA: -- it feels like 48 days-but over the last 48 hours. So yeah, that is all being factored into, you know, what we are putting together and what I'm assuming will be a counteroffer coming back from the Senate. There is not one particular group or one particular individual that is driving this process. We are-I think we're being rather inclusive as we move forward.
Q Mrs. Harman -- (off mike) -- in her opening remarks, as have others, that there's a concern if this doesn't get done by the election, that the momentum would dissipate. Given that it looks very difficult now-it's Friday afternoon and you're still in negotiations-what are the prospects for it truly happening by Election Day? And are you concerned that momentum would dissipate?
REP. HOEKSTRA: We're not putting off and saying that we can't get done by Election Day. I mean, I think the focus and what we have agreed on are a couple of things. We are going to do as much work as we can, as quickly as we can, through this weekend, to see exactly how much progress we can make.
We are all in agreement that we are not going to be moved by an artificial date which is, you know, when members can be called back here or when it needs to be completed for the election. The driving force here is, we all want a good bill.
You know, how it all plays out as to whether this is a more conducive environment to get it done, rather than after the election, you know, that may be a consideration. We may factor that in slightly differently. But we do sense that there is-that this is a ripe opportunity to make this happen, and we're going to try to take advantage of this opportunity.
REP. HARMAN: If I could just add to that, I will be sorely disappointed if we're not able to move this. I think that almost every organization on the planet that's interested is behind the Senate bill. And I'm very hopeful that -- (chuckles) -- in 24 hours, the House Republican offer will morph into the Senate bill, and then we'll have a deal.
There's an easy way to do this, folks. We can do this.
I also want to point out that we're at heightened alert. I tried to drive over to the Senate side last night and got stuck, you know, with about five barriers in my face because of the heightened alert. It took a while. I think we owe the country a bill in the shortest possible time, and I would still urge that we-we have the recipe.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Yeah. I mean, I'll just say-I'll say very briefly-and you've probably heard me say before that I think we ought to do this before the election, and I think we ought to do it before the election because I felt that it was the best way to get the best bill possible. Look, with every passing day-we have to be realistic-it's harder to do it right before the election. But we're going to work all this weekend to try to make it happen, and the important thing to say is that what is driving the momentum for this bill ultimately has to be not a particular day on which the election occurs, but the fact that we're under the threat of another terrorist attack and the 9/11 commission has told us we're not properly prepared to defend against it.
Q I wanted to clarify. You guys said we're going to be working throughout the weekend. Does that mean all four of you are physically going to be in Washington, D.C., working throughout the weekend? What are your schedules looking like?
REP. HOEKSTRA: I think some of us are going to be in Washington. Some may be back in their home districts. The intent is-you know, in the information age we have no doubt that we can be electronically communicated or communicating. Our staffs are going to be here through the weekend.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: That's the reassuring part. (Laughter.)
REP. HOEKSTRA: Okay. So --
Q So that means that you wouldn't convene --
REP. HOEKSTRA: We would not convene a-we would not convene a conference this weekend, that is correct.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Well, we-we --
Q And the rest of the members have already left town?
REP. HOEKSTRA: No. I mean, they actually --
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Oh, some are around. I'm sorry.
REP. HARMAN: Some are here.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Speaking on the Senate side, the Senate will have at least a conference call meeting tomorrow.
REP. HOEKSTRA: I mean, just on the House side-and I think-I don't know if Ike is here, but I think two out of-at least two out of the three Democratic members are still in town --
REP. HARMAN: They are.
REP. HOEKSTRA: -- and four out of the five Republicans were still in town and meeting and working this morning, as late as-I met with Jim Sensenbrenner at 1:00. So --
REP. HARMAN: I would think most members would physically try to be here for any conference meeting if we convene one, and I hope we'll get some positive, you know, feedback tomorrow and move the process along. I still want a bill before the election. All three of us want a good bill before the election.
Q Well, when does that become physically impossible? I mean, in terms of getting everybody back here, you know, getting all the lawmakers. What's the drop-dead --
REP. HOEKSTRA: On the House side, that is a decision that will be made by the speaker and the majority leader in consultation with the minority leader as to how much notification is necessary to get the members back.
You know, realistically speaking, I think they would tell you it's probably sometime on Monday that decision would have to be made.
Q Mr. Chairman?
REP. HOEKSTRA: Yes?
Q Just so I understand the process of what's transpired over the last 48 hours, you put forth your chairman's mark-whatever we're calling it --
REP. HOEKSTRA: Right.
Q-on Wednesday, to the surprise of some in the conference. And now you're putting forth a recalibrated chairman's mark?
REP. HOEKSTRA: What I said that I was preparing a mark that-to break the ice, because as we were going through it, we had 212 pages of line-by-line comparison, all right? And after four hours, the House and Senate staff had made it through 17 pages out of the 212; that I was willing to take the lead and develop a chairman's mark to put forward, okay? And we were well under way to put that chairman's mark forward. Under the, you know, encouragement of my colleague here-you know, I didn't expect quite the response that I got from Jane on Wednesday because, you know, we have been bipartisan in the committee; we are trying to set that tone. And it was like-you know-and I think, you know, the senators were a little bit more understanding and a little bit more forgiving than what Jane was. Jane just holds me to a higher standard, okay?
REP. HARMAN: There you go! Well said.
REP. HOEKSTRA: But, you know, that after the session on Wednesday, we became very, very much engaged in going through the process of saying-of me outlining in more general terms-"Here's where I am. Here's where we're going."-and then providing feedback; us providing a rough of the judiciary piece to the minority; them responding back with some feedback. There has been a lot of give and take on the international relations area, the financial services area. And what the four of us have been most focused on is designing the structure and the authorities and the responsibilities of the national intelligence director. We recognize that's the linchpin.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Let me just put an exclamation point after something Pete said so it's clear. We're focused on the NID, and that's the offer on Title 1, and that will be our response. But meantime, we've had a lot of work going on at a staff level on all the other sections of the bill, and we've had some exchange with other-with members of the House and the Senate on other sections, including immigration, so that if we can get a breakthrough on Title 1, we'll be steps ahead on trying to bring the other sections together.
REP. HARMAN: But I do want to be clear that the House Democratic conferees are not supporting this Republican House offer on Title 1. We still strongly prefer the Senate language.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Yeah.
STAFF: One more question, please.
REP. HOEKSTRA: Yeah, Jane will have a book-burning this afternoon -- (laughter) -- so one last question!
Q Mr. Chairman, if you could just address, a lot of Republicans in the House in the last couple of days have expressed concern that the way the Senate has structured the NID it will break that lifeline between military commanders in the field and intelligence. Do you share those concerns? And do you believe your proposal that you're making to the Senate will address this?
REP. HOEKSTRA: The-sure, I share those concerns. Number one, I'm chairing this conference, and it's my responsibility to try to lead, along with my colleagues, the way to getting to a final agreement. So if there are serious reservations and concerns that are being expressed, I need to hear those, and I need to listen to those.
And that-you're correct that they are coming from the House-some of the folks from the House Republican conference. I'm a member of the House Republican conference. Of course I'm going to listen to those concerns. And the thing that we are working towards today and I think what we are asking the Senate to respond to and what our colleagues on the House Democratic side-will be to see whether we have successfully met what I think are two goals that we can meet, because we want a strong NID. We-I think we believe that a strong NID will not only maintain that strong relationship with the warfighter but will enhance the relationship because, with a focused effort, with strong leadership at the NID, we will have a better intelligence community. A better intelligence community will benefit our warfighter, will benefit the policymakers and will benefit the president as we move forward.
REP. HARMAN: I just --
SEN. LIEBERMAN: That is a great argument for the Senate bill. (Laughter.)
REP. HARMAN: Yeah. I just want to agree with every word Peter Hoekstra just said on the strong NID helping the warfighter, but add that I always thought that the Democratic Caucus on the House side was all splintered and split about every issue, and the Republican Caucus was a monolith. Well, I've learned something in the last 48 hours.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: This bill --
REP. HOEKSTRA: We allow for diversity. (Laughter.)
SEN. LIEBERMAN: No, but the interesting thing, as we-as you all know who have been following in this, this bill really breaks partisan lines. (Chuckling.) And the divisions come about more based on what committees you're on in the Congress and the Senate, and somewhat on ideological grounds in some other parts of it.
I mean, this has been-your question goes to some of the most difficult and passionate debates we've had over the last few days. And you know, I can only say-and I've said to my House colleagues who are concerned about this-we worked very closely, Senator Collins and I, with Senator Levin and Senator Warner, the heads of the Armed Services Committee. We made changes to our proposal which we thought kept the NID strong but didn't interrupt the chain of command within the Pentagon. And I said at one point in the discussion if I felt that anything in this bill would compromise the security of America's warfighters, I wouldn't be for the bill.
REP. HARMAN: Right. Right.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: The fact is, I believe that the failure to coordinate our intelligence has not given our warfighters the kind of support that they need today-or they get a lot, but it could be better. And that's why we're supporting this bill.
REP. HOEKSTRA: Okay, thank you. Thank you.
Q Thank you, Congressman Hoekstra. (Correctly pronouncing his name.) (Laughter.)
REP. HOEKSTRA: Thank you! You know, if you get the name right, I'll answer your questions more often!
Q Mr. Chairman, did you say there would be a public meeting today?
REP. HOEKSTRA: No. No.