To prohibit the use of Department of Justice funds for the prosecution in Article III courts of the United States of individuals involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Madam Speaker, I want to share the following letters that I have sent to President Obama urging him to implement four bipartisan proposals to strengthen our national security. It is disappointing that the administration has not adopted these proposals that would make our country safer.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

January 12, 2010.

Hon. Barack H. Obama,

President,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: ``National Security is too important to

become a partisan issue.'' This sentence was the opening line

in a January 11 USA Today op-ed jointly authored by Lee

Hamilton and Thomas Kean, co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission.

Last week, you, too, said, ``Now is not a time for

partisanship, it's a time for citizenship--a time to come

together and work together with the seriousness of purpose

that our national security demands.'' I could not agree more

with this sentiment.

No nation, including America, can hope to win this long

battle against al Qaeda and like foes if the war effort is

marked by partisanship. Sadly, not only has partisanship

infused the rhetoric surrounding national security

discussions, it has actually obstructed the critical role of

congressional oversight. Too often in recent months

partisanship has resulted in withholding of information,

unanswered letters and briefings denied by this

administration.

The stakes are too high and the cost of failure is too

great for petty politics to rule the day. The White House has

a moral obligation to actively and consistently reach out to

the minority party in Congress, to be forthcoming with

information and to provide access to all levels of

government.

Hamilton and Kean go on to write, ``We intend to monitor

the implementation of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations

and report on new national security threats.'' I urge you to

encourage this effort by bringing back these two co-chairs

for a six-month period to conduct a formal review and 9/11

Commission follow-up. They would be charged with evaluating

which of the Commission's original recommendation have been

implemented and to what end, and which have failed to be

implemented and at what cost.

This past weekend, The Washington Post featured an op-ed by

Bruce Hoffman, respected professor of security studies at

Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the U.S.

Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center. Hoffman wrote,

``(W)hile al-Qaeda is finding new ways to exploit our

weaknesses, we are stuck in a pattern of belated responses,

rather than anticipating its moves and developing preemptive

strategies. The `systemic failure' of intelligence analysis

and airport security that Obama recently described was not

just the product of a compartmentalized bureaucracy or

analytical inattention, but a failure to recognize al

Qaeda's new strategy. The national security architecture

built in the aftermath of Sept. 11 addresses yesterday's

threats--but not today's and certainly not tomorrow's. It

is superb at reacting and responding, but not at

outsmarting . . . a new approach to counterterrorism is

essential.''

Distinct from temporarily bringing back the two 9/11

Commission co-chairs, I also urge the creation of a ``Team

B.'' As you may know, historically the phrase ``Team B''

refers to a group of outside experts, commissioned by the

Central Intelligence Agency in the 1970's and headed by

Richard Pipes, to analyze the threats posed by the Soviet

Union to the United States and counter the positions of

intelligence officials within the CIA, known as ``Team A.''

In your remarks last week following the review of the

attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack, you rightly

referred to our enemy as ``nimble.'' Too often our response

to the evolving threat posed by al Qaeda, and others

sympathetic to their murderous aims, is anything but.

The Team B concept has been successful in previous

administrations when fresh eyes were needed to provide the

commander-in-chief with objective information to make

informed policy decisions. I believe it can work now, too,

and suggest that among the individuals, but not exclusively,

whose expertise and forward-thinking would be well-suited to

a Team B are: Bruce Hoffman; Andrew McCarthy and Patrick

Fitzgerald, both of whom were involved in the prosecution of

Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman in the first World Trade Center

bombings; Fouad Ajami, professor at the School of Advanced

International Studies (SAIS), Johns Hopkins University; Jean

Bethke Elshtain, professor of social and political ethics at

the University of Chicago; economist Judy Shelton, National

Endowment for Democracy board member; foreign policy

columnist and author Anne Applebaum; Andrew F. Krepinevich

Jr., author of Seven Deadly Scenarios: A Military Futurist

Explores War in the 21st Century; Elliot Cohen, professor of

Strategic Studies at SAIS; Philip D. Zelikow, diplomat and

author who worked as executive director of the 9/11

Commission, and Joshua Muravchik, formerly a scholar at the

American Enterprise Institute and presently a Foreign Policy

Institute fellow at SAIS.

The 9/11 Commission report was issued nearly six years ago.

Even if every recommendation had been implemented, which it

has not, our enemy has evolved since that time. Our current

intelligence infrastructure is at times overwhelmed by data,

information and the urgency of daily events, and as such is

unable to dedicate the time and resources necessary to think

outside the box and better comprehend this multidimensional

threat. ``Team B'' would possess the necessary expertise but

would be free from these daily pressures. The team would

represent a ``new approach to counterterrorism'' which

focuses not just on connecting the dots of intelligence, but

which seeks to stay a step ahead in understanding how to

break the radicalization and recruitment cycle that sustains

our enemy, how to disrupt their network globally and how to

strategically isolate them.

I also believe there is an urgent need to make the

Transportation Security Agency (TSA) administrator a long-

term position. Since TSA's inception following the 9/11

attacks, there have been six Transportation Security Agency

administrators and acting administrators. For a position of

this import to turn over with such frequency and to

automatically change hands with each new administration

simply does not make sense. I am introducing legislation that

mirrors the language used to establish a 10-year term and

Senate confirmation for FBI directors. I am hopeful that

members of both parties will see the merits of this proposal

and I urge your support for this change.

America is a great nation facing an enemy unlike any other

we have ever known. We must steel ourselves for the struggle

ahead, frankly assessing the nature and scope of the threat

we face and guarding against partisanship at all costs. The

people of this country deserve nothing less.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress.