Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, in my district on September 11, 122 of our friends and neighbors never returned home from work, never returned to…
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, in my district on September 11, 122 of our friends and neighbors never returned home from work, never returned to their families. The smoking ruins of the Twin Towers were visible for all of my community to see and, to this day, their absence is still felt every time we look across the Hudson River and see the void where the Towers once stood. So the events of that day are very personal to us. We are reminded of them always.
This debate is the most important debate that will be held during the entire 108th Congress: how do we respond to the unanimous, bipartisan recommendations of the 9/11 Commission in protecting this Nation and helping prevent future terrorist attacks from occurring?
Over 3 years after that fateful September 11 day, my amendment is based upon the work of the 9/11 Commission and an inquiry that spanned 20 months, 19 days of hearings, 160 witnesses, the review of 2.5 million documents, and interviews of more than 1,200 individuals in 10 countries. The new structure proposed in this amendment is based upon a rock-solid foundation of inquiry and information.
Under Governor Kean and Congressman Hamilton, the bipartisan Commission unanimously made 41 recommendations to strengthen our country against terrorists. Those recommendations were for sweeping changes to our government, our intelligence community, and to how oversight is provided by Congress. The two they have called the most urgent; that is, the most time-sensitive to act on: a strong National Intelligence Director, and a National Counterterrorism Center, form the centerpiece of the Menendez substitute we consider here today. That is why the 9/11 Commissioners and organizations that represent the 9/11 families such as the family steering committee for the 9/11 Commission all support the McCain-Lieberman-Collins combination legislation that this substitute embodies.
The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and other Republicans wrote asking that the Shays-Maloney amendment be made in order. The Committee on Rules, I would argue, did so by making the Menendez substitute in order. And, after a 96-to-2 vote yesterday in the Senate on legislation very substantively as this substitute, the principles and provisions of this amendment are also supported by both Senate Republicans and Senate and House Democrats.
Unfortunately, the House Republican bill, H.R. 10, leaves out many of the bipartisan recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In fact, out of the 41 recommendations, it appears that only 11 are implemented, 15 are not implemented at all, and 15 others are done so incompletely.
H.R. 10 also includes provisions that are unrelated to the bill's stated purpose: reorganizing the intelligence community and strengthening the Nation against terrorist attacks. In doing so, over 50 extraneous provisions were included that go well beyond the Commission's recommendations.
Like the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, the Menendez substitute creates a strong national intelligence director with real budgetary
and personnel authority. Unfortunately, the House Republican bill creates a weak NID with no budget authority and limited personnel authority.
Like the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, the Menendez substitute creates a strong National Counterterrorism Center headed by a strong director appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate. Unfortunately, the House Republican bill creates a weak NCTC without a presidentially-appointed director.
Like the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, the Menendez substitute strengthens the nonproliferation programs that keep nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists. Unfortunately, the Republican bill only calls for a study into the matter.
Like the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, the Menendez substitute requires vulnerability assessments and security plans for our critical infrastructure, including our ports, chemical plants, and public transportation systems. Unfortunately, the House Republican bill makes no effort to address these issues.
Like the 9/11 Commission recommendations, the Menendez substitute authorizes new money to protect the United States by taking real action to secure the peace in Afghanistan, the home of the Taliban, al Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden. Unfortunately, the House Republican bill only asks for new reports.
My constituents and all Americans expect us to do everything we can to defeat terrorism, not to do a third of what is necessary or half of what is necessary or even three-quarters of what is necessary. We need to use, we have a responsibility to use every tool we have.
The facts are clear. Our proposal implements the Commission's recommendations. The Republican bill implements only 11 of the recommendations in full, partially implementing another 15. That is just not good enough. America needs a complete and total strategy to fight this enemy, not a partial one like the Republican bill gives us. America requires and deserves better than that, and that is why I ask my colleagues to support the Menendez substitute and the 9/11 Commission's report.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Democratic leader of the House of Representatives.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Our substitute does exactly what the 9/11 commission said was necessary to secure the borders of the United States, and all of this fear-mongering to suggest that the substitute would permit foreign terrorists to be allowed to stay does a disservice both to the commission and to those who have worked so hard to bring this type of legislation to the floor. Secondly, the question about throwing money around is not an issue. When you have no money for nonproliferation, when you have no money for homeland security, when you do not deal with any of the commission's report language as it relates to money, you are failing the American people.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the distinguished ranking Democrat on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who has done so much work even prior to the commission's report.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
A deadly mistake is the number of recommendations the 9/11 Commission put forth that are not included in H.R. 10, and as it relates to declassifying the top line budget, that vote was 55 to 37 in the Senate, with people like John McCain, Chuck Hagel and Trent Lott voting for it. I do not think they want to risk the danger of American troops. So I think that makes imminent sense that people like that support that amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the distinguished ranking Democrat on the Committee on Government Reform.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Chair how much time remains on both sides.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 25 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the distinguished ranking Democrat on the Select Committee on Homeland Security.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
Fewer safeguards to protect America than the unanimous bipartisan recommendations of the 9/11 Commission? That is outrageous. Are we saying the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, with a unanimous vote of 51 Republican Senators and 96 Senators actually voted to reduce the safeguards to America? I do not think so.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), someone who fought for his country, someone who has enormous experience in the national security and defense of the United States, and who is the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
First, in 1997 and 1998, we disclosed the top line and we did not risk the national security of the United States.
The American people have the right to know how much that collective amount is. It does not tell us where we divide that money, covert, overt, and for what other purposes.
And I would say that the other body overwhelmingly voted for the disclosure.
In 1997 and 1998.
The other body just voted that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
As a trial attorney, I know what to do when you do not have the facts and the law on your side. You bang on the table and try to create confusion. That is what the other side is trying to do here because they have left us less secure in H.R. 10.
We heard a lot about flip-flopping lately. Well, the administration put out a statement of policy saying the administration supports the Collins-Lieberman bill, and went on specifically to say that they would oppose weakening the NID, exactly what H.R. 10 does.
My colleagues are going against what the President wants. Now the President comes out, after he supports the Senate version, and says, well, I support H.R. 10, but then he has three pages of exceptions to H.R. 10 that he does not like in your bill and thinks that you make America less secure by virtue of what is in the bill.
So you cannot have it every which way. Either the President is for the 9/11 Commission or he is not. Either he is for McCain-Collins- Lieberman or he is not.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who has worked tirelessly on the task force on Homeland Security for House Democrats and worked with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) on what, in essence, is the Menendez proposal.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to simply say if the gentleman is concerned about bureaucracy, then he needs to read the statement of administration policy that says, ``The administration remains concerned about a series of provisions in H.R. 10 that create new bureaucratic structures and layers in the office of the NID and elsewhere that would hinder, not help, the effort to strengthen U.S. intelligence capabilities.''
Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) to deal with some of the questions that have been raised here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), a senior member of the Committee on International Relations.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) who has offered and is embodied in our substitute, in essence the 9/11 Commission's report.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) just made a statement, but his committee reported out a bill that contained a historic $3.4 billion commitment to first responders. Was that provision included in H.R. 10? The answer is no. Let us look at some of what the 9/11 commissioners have said: ``The Senate bill is a giant step forward'' and ``the right vehicle for our recommendations.'' That incredible vote on a bipartisan basis in the Senate is the basis of the Menendez substitute. Lee Hamilton said, ``The House bill contains a number of proposals that go beyond the commission's recommendations'' and could very well, in essence, affect the nature of getting a bill done in the 108th Congress.
The statement of the Family Steering Committee, in support of Shays- Maloney, as we have heard, which is, in essence, the Menendez substitute, said, ``If House Members present H.R. 10 for vote rather than a choice that includes H.R. 5150 legislation, enacting the 9/11 Commission reforms may be doomed.''
Let me try to take away all the obfuscation, and, by the way, about not submitting amendments, it was our statement that we sought on the greatest issue to face this country, the national security of the United States and how one responds to the September 11 Commission report, we asked for an open rule. An open rule would have let any Member of the House work its way and have the House's will work its way in front of the American people about what were the best ideas with the 9/11 Commission's report as a foundation to best secure America. But that open rule was not presented. So we would have had all the amendments that may have perfected.
There has been a lot of obfuscation here about what the Menendez substitute does and does not do. Let us make it clear once again. It is the 9/11 Commission report. It is the Collins-Lieberman-McCain legislation. It is what passed in the Senate 96 to 2 with over 51 Republican Senators and such a bipartisan support. It is, in essence, the real reform.
There are a lot of reasons why people do not want to seek reform. There are a lot of turf issues. People do not want to give up their abilities. But the only turf we should be fighting for is our collective turf as a country, and that is what this institution should be doing.
Let me just go through some of the critical issues. Like the 9/11 Commission recommendations, the Menendez substitute creates a strong National Intelligence Director. They do not.
Like the 9/11 Commission recommendations, our substitute creates a strong National counterterrorism Center. They do not.
Like the 9/11 Commission recommendations, the Menendez substitute mandates strengthening the Nunn-Lugar programs against nuclear nonproliferation. They do not.
Like the 9/11 Commission recommendations, our substitute mandates the creation of long-term strategies to win the struggle for ideas in the Muslim world. Theirs do not.
Like the 9/11 Commission recommendations, the Menendez substitute provides for much more extensive U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, including authorizing an additional $2.8 billion to win the war in what is the central part of terror. Theirs does not.
Like the 9/11 Commission recommendations, our substitute requires the Transportation Security Administration to improve explosive detection capabilities. Theirs does not.
Like the 9/11 Commission recommendations, our substitute replaces the current patchwork of border screening systems with an integrated screening system with one set of standards far beyond what they do. Like the 9/11 Commission recommendations, our substitute creates a government-wide Civil Liberties Oversight Board to review the use of intelligence powers and act as a watchdog. Theirs does not.
I urge the 25 colleagues on the other side of the aisle who voted for the 9/11 Commission to now have the same vision and courage and vote for this substitute and let us move forward to real reform and a greater, secure America. Vote for the Menendez substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Announcement By The Chairman Pro Tempore
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.