国会纪录：2002年9月24日（参议院）Page S9096-S9099 2002年Homeland Security Act  - 持续[...]德威先生。总统先生大约3小时前，参议院通过了利伯曼 - 麦凯恩修正案，创建一个独立的国家委员会，调查导致9月11日恐怖袭击事件的活动。我投票赞成这项修正案。我今天下午来到地板上，简要解释为什么和解释我希望委员会能做的事情以及我希望它不会花很多时间做。我相信委员会应专注于联合参议院智商委员会的调查，专注于看9月11日悲剧。作为该委员会的成员，我认为我们应该看看不仅仅是在9月11日领导的原因，而不仅仅是找出失败的失败，而且更重要的是，朝着未来寻找[[页面S9098]]并试图确定我们可以做的更改，我们可以做些什么来改善我们的智力运营，我们的智力网络。我相信应该是国家委员会的同样的重点。国家委员会将继承我们联合委员会的工作。很快，我们将完成我们的工作。国家委员会不仅可以获得我们的工作，但它将有其他信息。 It will have the information that has been dug up by some very good reporters. It will have additional information, and so the foundation clearly will be laid. The commission will not have to spend a lot of time rehashing the errors that were made. What I hope the commission will spend most of its time on, though, is the future. I would like to talk a little bit about that future this afternoon and what I think we need to do. Knowing what failures have occurred in the past certainly is vital, but it is not enough. Knowing what we should do in the future is really what is important. The creation of this independent commission presents us with the opportunity to build on our current congressional intelligence investigation. One of the reasons I did vote in favor of this commission is that I believe our Senate and House intelligence investigation stopped too early. We had a deadline. I thought the deadline was a mistake. I still think it is a mistake. Because we have that deadline, we have not been able to focus on the big picture issues of where we need to go in this country. The language of the McCain-Lieberman amendment that was adopted this afternoon clearly provides the commission with the opportunity to get into these big picture issues. I quote from that amendment. The amendment specifies the commission may . . . identify, review, and evaluate the lessons learned from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, regarding the structure, coordination, management policies, and procedures of the Federal Government. There is more to that. Those are words that I think are very important because those words, if this becomes law, will give this commission a great opportunity to look at these big picture issues about which I am talking. What am I talking about? Let me give some examples. I believe the commission should take a serious look at the role of the Director of Central Intelligence. I believe it is time to give the DCI the necessary authority and the ability to truly direct our overall intelligence operations. Quite simply, we need to empower the DCI to do the job. We all know the facts. Currently, the DCI, while he is in charge of our intelligence, only controls about 15 to 20 percent of the budget. This is an issue that has to be examined, and it has to be looked at, no matter how people come down on this issue. I know it is a contentious issue, and it may divide this Senate, it may divide the commission, but we need to look at it. We had the opportunity in our joint committee the other day to hear from Sandy Berger, Anthony Lake, and Brent Scowcroft on a panel. All three of them said with various degrees of language that we need to make a change in the DCI, we need to make the DCI more powerful, we need to enable him to get the job done. That is an issue at which we should look. Second, I believe we must seriously examine the long-term resource issues that confront us, not just now but over the long haul--over the next decade, maybe over the next two decades, or three decades. Are we providing the resources we need for our intelligence community? And are we providing them in the right way? Do they know they are going to have the necessary resources, as much as anybody can ever know year to year with Congress? But do they have some indication those resources are going to be there so they can get the job done? How much resources do they, in fact, need to protect us? Maybe a good way of looking at it is to say, if tomorrow we were struck again and we are all in shock again, what would be our reaction? What would we do to the budget then? Maybe we need to ask ourselves that question and go ahead and do it now. The next question I hope the commission looks at is: Do we have the human resources available within the agencies themselves? Are we going to get the necessary people because ultimately it comes down to people. We have good people. They are doing a good job. They are working 14, 15, 16 hours a day, but there is only so much they can do. How many more people do we need? My guess is we need a lot more people based on what I have seen. In the counterterrorism center, for example, in the CIA, FBI, we need a lot more people. Do we have the right technology is another question the commission should look at, and do we have enough of it to get the job done in the new world in which we live? The technology the FBI has is not good. If any major business in this country had that technology, somebody would be fired; a lot of people would be fired. It is shameful. It is wrong. It is not fair to the employees, and it is not fair to the American people. We are, frankly, responsible for that. We are responsible for that failure. We have an obligation to change that. That is another issue at which this commission should look. The commission should ask us and the American people: What is our long-term commitment to intelligence? Finally, I think the commission needs to examine the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the FISA statute, and determine what changes are necessary to make sure we are getting intelligence from this source to help prevent future attacks. We made improvements in FISA. The Patriot Act was an improvement. Quite frankly, Congress has been derelict in its duty over two decades to have good oversight over FISA. It has been a hidden court, as it was designed to be; a secret court, as it was designed to be. Yet we have not figured out some way through the Intelligence Committees to have good oversight to find out how the law we wrote as representatives of the American people is truly being interpreted. For the first time we have a court decision that has come out of the FISA court. It is not public, but we can at least look at it. It is the first one, to my knowledge, that has been published in 2 decades. I do not happen to agree with the decision, but we can look at it. It is being appealed. We will have an opportunity to see what the court of appeals says about that, but at least that part of the debate is out there. We must continue to look for ways to fulfill our oversight responsibility in the Congress. That is an issue that the commission should look at as well. These are a few of the issues I think the commission needs to look at. Let me say, however, it is not just the commission's responsibility. I voted for this amendment, not because I felt it would be solely the commission's responsibility to look at these issues; I believe the Senate Intelligence Committee has an obligation to look at these big-picture issues in the months and years ahead. I believe the House has the same obligation. I simply believed that with an additional commission issuing reports in 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, that would be an added voice, an added set of eyes, more expertise, to look at some of these issues this country should be debating. Ultimately, we need a serious national debate about all of these issues and so many more, even those that are outside the realm of the intelligence community. In examining the intelligence component, if we have learned anything from September 11, it is that our security, our safety, and the safety of our loved ones, is intrinsically linked to the quality of that intelligence. So we must do all we can to improve the quality of that intelligence. The ability to share that information with the appropriate agencies is involved with our national security. As Members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, as Members of this Senate, we have an obligation to examine these issues. We must debate them. The proposed commission can certainly play a productive role in these debates and in these investigations. Therefore, I was pleased this afternoon to support its creation. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada. Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that following the cloture vote on the Lieberman amendment tomorrow, if cloture is not invoked, the Senate remain on the homeland defense bill and [[Page S9099]] Senator Gramm of Texas be recognized to offer an amendment; that there be two hours of debate equally divided between Senators Gramm and Lieberman or their designees; that at the conclusion of that time the amendment continue to be debatable and Senator Daschle or his designee be recognized. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. REID. Mr. President, the amendment we have been waiting for for some time will be offered in the morning, or as soon as the vote is completed, as the unanimous consent request indicated. It appears the two managers have some amendments they can clear on this homeland security bill. That being the case, we will stay on the bill. When the amendments are cleared, we will go to a period for morning business until Senators have said all they wish to say, and then we will recess until tomorrow. We hope this is the beginning of the end of this bill. I think we have made progress to get to this point. As I have indicated, we have been trying to get this amendment now for about the second week, so finally we are there. This is a big amendment. We will determine how it is going to be disposed of sometime tomorrow. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________