Posted on 12/08/2004 8:51:37 AM PST by OXENinFLA
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time and commend her for her tremendous leadership, outstanding leadership as our ranking member on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. HOEKSTRA) for his leadership, as well as chair of the conference and as chair of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. HARMAN). I know firsthand of her great work, and we are all very proud of it.
Mr. Speaker, more than 4 months ago, the 9/11 Commission created by Congress to examine the intelligence failures of 9/11 made a critical judgment. It concluded that the United States intelligence community was not structured properly to counter the threats, including terrorism, that our Nation was likely to face in the years to come.
In response to that judgment, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission unanimously issued 41 recommendations to make America safer. The most critical of these was the creation of a powerful manager for the intelligence community, one with the authority to establish budgets and to move money and people between agencies as dictated by changing needs.
The commission's conclusion and this recommendation mirrored a similar judgment made 2 years ago by a congressional joint inquiry that neither the President nor the Republican Congress acted upon. [Horse Hockey! Executive Order National Counterterrorism Center -- New Terrorist Screening Center Established ] Thank heavens we are acting today.
Fortunately, the 9/11 Commission's recommendations and the tireless advocacy of the 9/11 Commission and the victims' families gave us the opportunity to produce a better result today. We are greatly in their debt.
Another significant recommendation was the establishment of a civil liberties board. As we protect and defend the American people from terrorism, we must also protect and defend the Constitution and the civil liberties contained therein. Again, I wish the conferees would have agreed to a stronger board, as was contained in the Senate bill. Instead, we have to rely on the dedication and stature of those appointed to the board to overcome any weaknesses in its power.
Thankfully, the worst of the egregious provisions on immigration and law enforcement that were in the House bill have been removed due to the firm resolve of a majority of the members of the conference committee.
I, too, would like to engage the distinguished chairman in a colloquy. It was not my intention until I heard the colloquy of the previous speaker. I would just like to know what it means that in the next Congress my colleagues will take up the immigration provisions that are not in this bill and will have the cooperation of the President. What does that mean? Does that mean we will be revisiting the same provisions that were removed from this bill in order to obtain passage of it this evening?
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank her for yielding and appreciate the work she has done in putting together this bill.
What the indications are and what the colloquy I had with my colleague indicate are that the provisions that were deleted from the bill that we are considering today, the difference between the previously House-passed version and what is in the conference report are of utmost importance to members of our conference, to the leadership and to the President, and that through regular order we will pursue moving those agenda items forward in the next Congress.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, so my colleagues removed them. I just want to make sure I understand correctly. The egregious, considered by some of us, extraneous provisions that were in this bill that were removed in order to get the compromise legislation that we have here today will be taken up in the next Congress and be moved quickly to what? Pass into law?
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield, we will go through regular order to take many of the provisions that had previously passed the House as part of H.R. 10. They will be considered again by the House and will move through the regular process, meaning that this body will consider the legislation. If this body endorses the legislation and the Senate obviously provides complementary legislation, we will go through the conference process to see if it is possible to make those provisions and move them into law.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's candor. I have concerns about his statement, however, because there was a oneness, an integrity to this bill which contained many of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, bipartisan, and unanimously, and the support of the United States Senate in a very bipartisan way; and I had hoped that what we were introducing today as a compromise was a bill that had, again, this oneness and this integrity. I am concerned that a piece of it is taken off with a commitment that it may be passed.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield, I think it is obvious to us that we went there through the process. Many of the provisions that were a vital part of the House bill were not part of the base bill in the Senate, or similar items were not part of the base bill in the Senate; and so we believe that it is important and there will be an opportunity to move through the process with the Senate in the next session of Congress.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. HOEKSTRA). Again, I have serious concerns.
I hope that, again, the Republican leadership will not tarnish this achievement today with commitments to vote on ill-advised changes to our immigration laws in the next Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that today we must move forward. There is one recommendation of the 9/11 Commission that we are not considering today, and that is, congressional oversight; that the commission also recommended changes in the intelligence oversight process in the Congress in addition to the changes in the executive branch. Without effective congressional oversight, the reforms put in place by this bill will be less successful in protecting the American people. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) in a bipartisan way to institute more effective congressional oversight.
[Page: H11010] GPO's PDF
Today, again, we must move forward. This bill, although not perfect, strengthens the process by which we manage the collection, processing, and dissemination of intelligence. In doing so, it reduces the risk to the American people. It honors the work of the 9/11 Commission, and I hope it will bring some comfort to the families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks.
Actually, passage of this bill is a tribute to the 9/11 families. They have constantly been an inspiration to us because they turned their grief into action. The American people are safer, and we are deeply in their debt. We will never forget their loss, and we thank them for their courage. We owe them at least that much, and that is to make the American people safer. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
(You may have to increase the font size to see the parts I bolded)
Whoops these remarks were taken from:
28 . CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 2845, INTELLIGENCE REFORM AND TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT OF 2004 -- (House of Representatives - December 07, 2004)
At the link.
The way these hacks constantly congratulate each other for their 'leadership' makes me ill.
And if/when we get attacked again, she will be screeching that "this President" did not do enough to prevent it from happening. I hate that woman.
Isn't gentlewoman and Ms. Pelosi in the same sentence an oxymoron?
No doubt, though in this case, I believe it was Pelosi who was referring to Jane Harman as the gentlewoman. If I'm not mistaken, as Dems go, Harman is among the more reasonable.
Well put.
So well put, for that matter, that I must congratulate the distinguished drt1 for his leaderhship on this vital matter ;-)
Well how about in the same paragraph. HAHA.
I saw this exchange with Pelosi. She acted absolutely shocked that those deleted provisions might be persued. Remember HB 10...the house version of the intelligence bill passed by the house with 68%. It didn't take long for the sell out, did it?
In fact, I watched all the debate on the floor. Interestingly, the speakers who praised Pres. Bush and stood by him...were democrats.
Last night Jim Sensenbrenner, when asked why the Senate and White House would not consider the provisions for immigration...which the House passed in HB10, said:
"Because they were unilling to stand up to the illegal alien lobby."
Those big money donors for MALDEF (Soros, Ford Foundation, AARP, etc), can be found at:
http://ccir.net/REFERENCE/MALDEF-2002-2003.html (posted on AARP 12/5/4)
"Because they were unilling to stand up to the illegal alien lobby."
Making things up again AuntB? Will Andy throw you into the same jail cell as Otis?
free dixie,sw
If only there were a FR audio feature so that your comment could be played in a Sen. Foghorn Leghorn/Ernest Hollings voice!
Did you see my post on the Senate thread about the Sensenbrenner press conference?
I have been watching this spectacle on C-span with the Jackson song and dance show----what a farce!!!
Me too, she sounded almost scared that it would be brought back up.
I know they can't address each other by their first names.
True. I guess they're worried about things deteriorating.
"Would the fat slob from NYC yield?"
"Yield? To the skirt-chasing drunk from California? Not in this lifetime!"
I thought she sounded like she'd been assured she would never have to deal with it again. I heard 2 house members say they'd been promised by "leadership" that an immigration bill could be brought up after the 1st of the year and both said they knew it would never happen. They've tried for 3 years to address this with various bills, but were shot down everytime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.