T2 B18 Hamilton On Congressional Oversight Fdr- Entire Contents- Mfr Re 2-25-04 Meeting With Hamilton (not At Nara Site) Stapled W Email Re Congress Ovesight 759

COMMISSION

SENSITIVE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD Meeting with Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton on Congressional Oversight February 25, 2004 Attendees: Philip Zelikow, Chris Kojm, John Roth, the Vice Chairman's assistant, and Gordon Lederman Prepared by: Gordon Lederman Gordon Lederman provided a brief update on our work concerning Congressional oversight. The HPSCI and SSCI have collected documents at our request and are holding them for our review. We have scheduled interviews with SSCI and HPSCI staffers. Also, we have covered Congressional oversight issues during interviews with Executive Branch officials and academics. Vice Chairman Hamilton suggested that we talk with the staff director of Rep. Chris Shays' Government Reform subcommittee. We should also talk with Senator Bob Graham's staffers and Sen. Shelby's staffers. We are already scheduled to meet with Bill Duhnke. Philip Zelikow suggested that we talk with Sen. Shelby's staffer who wrote the Senator's addendum to the Joint Inquiry; Philip Zelikow thought that the staffer had gone into the Executive Branch. Vice Chairman Hamilton said that he is unsure how to approach this issue and directed us to meet with staffers of Senators McCain, Rockefeller, and Harman to ask them for recommendations for strengthening oversight and what recommendations are actually feasible. He noted that the Joint Inquiry did not examine Congressional oversight due to time constraints. Vice Chairman Hamilton said that we should keep in close contact with Commissioners Kerrey, Roemer, and Gorton because they have a strong interest in this issue on account of their experience in Congress. Commissioner Kerrey is extremely interested, Vice Chairman Hamilton said. Vice Chairman Hamilton said we should not confine our interviews just to Congress but should talk with high-level Executive Branch officials. However, talking with such officials is a delicate matter. We should also talk with the PFIAB. The Intelligence Community is difficult to oversee because (1) it has a "leave it to us" attitude, and (2) there is no media exposure. The PFIAB and Congress are the two bodies with a stand-off perspective on the Intelligence Community, although Vice Chairman Hamilton noted that the PFIAB is appointed by the President. Chris Kojm suggested that we need to go beyond Congressional oversight of the Intelligence Community and examine how Congress as an institution is handling national security issues after 9/11. He noted that there is a Select Committee on Homeland Security in the House but no comparable committee in the Senate.

COMMISSION

SENSITIVE

COMMISSION

SENSITIVE

Vice Chairman Hamilton suggested that we review the historical record of the HPSCI and SSCI before 9/11, such as what the Intelligence Community did to warn the committees concerning terrorism and how many hearings on terrorism were held. The Vice Chairman said that he is not hesitant to criticize Congress because Congress has two responsibilities to fulfill: legislation and oversight. His personal view is that Congress failed to do oversight. We should also examine how Congress has done oversight after 9/11. We should generate recommendations for what they should do from now on. Gordon Lederman asked whether we include the HASC and SASC in our inquiry given that these committees have resisted increased DCI authorities. Vice Chairman Hamilton noted that many commissions have recommended increased DCI authorities but that the HASC and SASC have opposed it. SecDef Rumsfeld's response to the DCI/DoD issue is to have good personal relations with the DCI - but are good personal relations enough, Vice Chairman Hamilton asked. Philip Zelikow commented as follows: (1)

Congressional oversight seems to be 'all trees and no forest,' not engaging on strategic issues (which concern the Executive Branch) but rather at the micro-budgetary level or on issues prominent in the media.

(2)

We will likely demand that the DCI develop a resource plan for terrorist intelligence across Intelligence Community, but there must be parallel Congressional oversight authority: Congress should be aligned so that the intelligence oversight committees have full authorization authority over the National Foreign Intelligence Program, and the HASC and SASC would then oversee only JMIP and TIARA. This alignment, however, would require declassifying the top line of the intelligence budget.

The Vice Chairman agreed that Congressional oversight gets lost in the trees. However, the more the recommendations focus on structural reform in Congress, the less feasible they become. The Vice Chairman suggested that, on the other hand, perhaps the Commission's role is to tell Congress to get its house in order. He relayed to us Commissioner Kerrey's recommendation that we start by reviewing the charters of the intelligence committees. Philip Zelikow asked about the Vice Chairman's experience in Congress. Vice Chairman Hamilton responded that Congress brings independence and is an 'outsider looking into' the Intelligence Community. The Intelligence Community is still a closed fraternity, although less so than in the past. Congress has the ability to make sharp criticisms that will rarely come out of the Executive Branch themselves, as people in the Executive Branch depend upon the Executive Branch for their jobs. And Congress ultimately has the power of the purse. Congress's responsibility in national security is to be very vigorous in exercising oversight. Oversight should be as serious a Congressional endeavor as legislation. But in the last several decades, Congress has fallen down. It is a separation of powers issue - oversight is an institutional responsibility. Obviously, the

COMMISSION

SENSITIVE

COMMISSION

SENSITIVE

intelligence arena is secret, and Congress does not have the assistance of the press like in domestic arenas; therefore, Congress has a special responsibility in the intelligence area to perform oversight. The Vice Chairman suggested that the major changes needed - as in many other areas - are attitudinal. The Vice Chairman said that we need to interview a lot of staffers. Regarding Members, he will follow our recommendation - perhaps five should be interviewed. The interviews would be led by Commissioners, and the Vice Chairman is happy to assist. Indeed, the Vice Chairman told Rep. Goss and Senator Graham that he will likely come back to talk with them. However, he would want to go talk with them armed with specific recommendations. The Vice Chairman noted that Rep. Goss complains about declassification issues, although many commissions have studied this issue over the years. Chris Kojm suggested we talk with Rep. David Dryer and asked about other Members to speak with about Congressional oversight as a whole (not just intelligence). The Vice Chairman suggested Reps. Cox and Turner. Chris Kojm suggested that we look at the question of whether the Select Committee on Homeland Security in the House should be made permanent. The Vice Chairman recently testified on this issue before a House Rules subcommittee, and we might talk to the chairman of that subcommittee. Vice Chairman Hamilton also suggested that we interview Members of the HASC and SASC such as Rep. Duncan Hunter and Rep. Norman Dix. He said that former Senator Bill Cohen favors giving up DoD budget authority over the Intelligence Community but is an exception on this issue. The Vice Chairman wants to speak with former SecDef Perry and would be glad to do so by speakerphone from the Vice Chairman's office. The Vice Chairman said that, when the HPSCI was initially established, the idea was to appoint very senior Members - Members who were not outside players and who could be trusted. During the HPSCFs early years, Members had on average 15-20 years' experience. Today, the Democrats have appointed to the HPSCI a first-term Member!. The HPSCI and SSCI have become the most popular committees aside from Appropriations and Ways-and-Means/Finance. Members believe that, by being on these committees, they become 'players' - the media pursues them, and their colleagues think they have access to secret information. Congressional leaders would likely say that Members are clamoring to be appointed to these committees. This desire is a source of power for the leaders, as they decide who is appointed. However, in the Vice Chairman's opinion, the rise in the committees' desirability and the decrease in the average experience of the committees' Members - factors which perhaps were inevitable over the long term - have led to deterioration in the quality of oversight. Gordon Lederman noted that at one point the Members of the SSCI were the chairs of other committees, and requiring the intelligence oversight committees to be composed of the chairs of other committees might be a good institutional arrangement to increase the level of experience of the committees' Members.

COMMISSION

SENSITIVE

COMMISSION

SENSITIVE

The Vice Chairman asked that we stay in close touch with him on our progress, including via meetings, and also keep Commissioners Roemer, Kerrey, and Gorton informed. Gordon Lederman said that he would draft a strategy in conjunction with the Front Office and Kevin Scheid. Philip Zelikow, Chris Kojm, the Vice Chairman's assistant, and Gordon Lederman left the meeting. John Roth stayed in order to brief the Vice Chairman on a discrete issue specific to Team 4's interview with Secretary Snow.

COMMISSION

SENSITIVE

February 25, 2004

To: LHH From: Ben CC: Chris Re: Congressional Oversight A brief outline of some of the topics and recommendations that have come up in Commission meetings, briefings and hearings regarding Congressional oversight: Problems In general, people feel that oversight is bogged down in investigations of front-page stories, turf wars, and ineffective budgeting. Due to complex issues and limited terms, Members lack expertise on some issues, and do not supply vigorous and forward-looking oversight. Budgeting Process: There is wide agreement that the budgeting process is not effective. The intelligence community budgets through supplemental; the legislative process of authorization and appropriation has broken down; conflicting priorities and turf wars with DoD and the Armed Services Committees interfere; and the annual budgeting cycle is not practical. Compelling Compliance: Oversight lacks teeth. Often, Committees excoriate intelligence officials in public hearings, then raise their budgets. Senator Shelby framed the question like this: Do you try to cut funds to compel compliance and risk diminishing intelligence capabilities? Inexperienced Membership: Terms on the Committees are limited, and it takes time to learn the nuances of intelligence issues. Committee appointments used to go to senior Members. Now it is a sought-after appointment, and leadership has even appointed a freshman Member. Too much Investigation: Senator Rockefeller feels the Committee spends too much time in backward-looking investigations. This deters from forward-looking oversight and budgeting. Classification Process: Congressman Goss complains that the Committee spends a huge amount of time on classification - some of which is unnecessary. This takes time away from oversight. Recommendations Extend terms or make membership permanent: This would allow Members to develop real expertise; contrary argument is that Members would become too close to the intelligence community. Appropriations Subcommittee on Intelligence: This would bring more order and expertise to the budgeting process. Longer budgeting cycle: Senator Nunn and others favor extending the budgeting cycle to two or three years. This would help resolve the problem of budgeting by supplemental; would enable agencies to plan; and would free up time for more oversight and other work by Committee staff. Investigation subcommittee: Creating an investigations subcommittee would narrow investigative work, freeing up more resources and time for the committee to take on other oversight issues.

Create a single Committee for both Houses: This idea has been floated to unify the oversight process, but lacks support and is probably impractical. More political appointees in intelligence community: This would put more accountability into the intelligence agencies and provide another lever to put some teeth into oversight. Outside expertise: Senator Graham and others highlight the importance of Committees drawing on expertise from outside the intelligence communities. More academic expertise gives the Committees a different viewpoint, and increases the public's awareness of intelligence issues.

Page 1 of 1

Gordon Lederman From:

Kevin Scheid

Sent:

Tuesday, December 09, 2003 5:41 PM

To:

Philip Zelikow

Cc:

Chris Kojm; Dan Marcus; Barbara Grewe; Steve Dunne; Christine Healey; Team 2

Subject: Congressional Oversight Plan Philip, As you'll recall, Team 2 is responsible for reviewing and assessing congressional oversight for the Commission. In earlier discussions with you we decided to limit this review of oversight to intelligence. This email is to provide you a plan on how we recommend conducting this review. Further, since we understand that Mr. Roemer has been meeting with some members of Congress on these issues, we also want to get your guidance on how to proceed in light of his work and the views of other Commissioners on the topic. Document Review: We now have access to documents from the House and Senate Intelligence oversight committees. We are in the process of reviewing these documents looking for insights into how the Committees conducted oversight of CT. The HPSCI forwarded to us many copies of finished intelligence related to terrorism, much of it after 9-11. I've asked them to broaden their search criteria to include Afghanistan, UBL, al-Qa'ida, and Pakistan. The Senate documents are very helpful, but the Committee will not release them w/o a Senate Resolution. They've requested that I review the documents on the Hill, identify which ones we want to have copies of, and then they will pass a resolution to release those particular files. This review is in process. Interviews: In addition to documents, we want to interview staff and Committee members, both current and former. We would like to forward a request for interviews to the Committees in the next week. On the House side, we would like to interview the following: Chairman Goss Ranking Minority Member, Ms. Jane Harman Congressman Norm Dicks Pat Murray, HPSCI staff director Suzanne Spalding, HPSCI minority staff director Tim Sample, former HPSCI staff director Kevin Roper, Majority staff director, House Appropriations, Defense Subcommittee Betsy Phillips, House Appropriations, Defense Subcommittee On the Senate side: Chairman Roberts Vice Chairman Rockefeller Former Chairman Graham Former Vice Chairman Shelby Bill Duhnke, staff director Chris Mellon, minority staff director Art Grant, Senator Kerrey's staffer and former minority staff director In addition to these interviews we will be able to call on the experience of Mr. Hamilton, Senator Gorton, Mr. Roemer and Senator Kerrey. We understand from comments made by Mr. Hamilton that Mr. Roemer has been meeting with members of Congress to discuss oversight issues. Unless you direct otherwise. Barbara Grewe and I plan to speak with Tim about his discussions before we launch into the^nteryiews^Q we don't duplicate work he perhaps has already done. Tim would also be very helpful in calling members to help open doors on the Hill. I will let you know where we stand after this meeting and give you a more complete sense of next steps.

2/25/2004