The U.S. House and Senate Select Committees on Intelligence yesterday began a joint investigation into the U.S. response to terrorism (see GSN, June 3). Instead of limiting themselves solely to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as expected, they are extending the investigation back to 1986, the New York Times reported.
The congressional panel’s inquiry is set to begin with an examination of the Reagan administration, under which the CIA created a counterterrorism center, the joint committees said. The inquiry will then focus on a series of attacks against the United States, beginning with the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York in 1993 and including the bombings of two U.S. Embassies in East Africa and the destroyer USS Cole in Yemen in 2000, according to the Times.
“The committee plans to look at how each of those investigations were handled, how the intelligence that came from those investigations were shared between agencies and whether lessons from those events were learned and applied as we moved forward,” said Paul Anderson, spokesman for Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham (D-Fla.).
The decision to extend the investigation to 1986 was part of a compromise stemming from debates weeks ago over how extensive the investigation should be, a member of the joint panel said.
“Democrats were trying to stop going back too far into what President [Bill] Clinton did or did not do, or his functionaries,” said the member of the joint panel. “The Republicans tried to stop [President George W.] Bush and his functionaries from having to take any bullets for what they did in the run-up to Sept. 11” (Johnston/Van Natta, New York Times, June 5).
In its opening session yesterday, the joint panel worked on procedures to govern its investigation, according to the Washington Post.
“We have now, I think, laid the foundation,” Graham said, adding that the joint panel marks the first time in 200 years that two congressional committees have joined together to conduct an investigation.
The panel set ground rules and heard from staff members that had begun examining documents from U.S. intelligence agencies, the Post reported. Under the ground rules, the House and Senate will alternate chairing the panel, with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss (R-Fla.) holding control this week. The panel’s sessions are closed to the public (Washington Post, June 5).
Goss said he was pleased with the results and tone of the panel’s first session.
“I think people on the committee really are taken by the seriousness of it,” he said. “We had very good member participation. The mood was very positive and refreshing, especially in comparison to the finger-pointing that is going on in other circles” (Johnston/Van Natta, New York Times).
Anthrax Attacks Also Included
The inquiry is also set to encompass the still-unsolved anthrax attacks that occurred last fall shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the Los Angeles Times (see GSN, May 21). One legislator on the panel insisted it be included, a congressional source said.
“That broadens the scope,” the source said. “The only real debate was over anthrax and (the members) had to figure out a way to accommodate that.”
To include the anthrax attacks, the panel’s investigation covers terrorist threats involving weapons of mass destruction, according to a seven-point plan developed by the panel (see GSN, June 4). The FBI’s “Amerithrax” investigation into who is responsible are relevant to the panel’s inquiry, said Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala.).
“I don’t think we should close our eyes to anything,” Shelby said. “As surely as night follows day, we’ll be hit with biological and chemical weapons” (Lichtblau/Anderson, Los Angeles Times, June 5).
Communication Breakdown ...
Meanwhile, Bush said yesterday that there was a breakdown in communications between the two main U.S. agencies responsible for counterterrorism operations, (see GSN, May 31).
“In terms of whether or not the FBI and CIA were communicating properly, I think it’s clear that they weren’t,” Bush said during a tour of the National Security Agency, which monitors overseas communications.
Bush also said yesterday that there is demonstrated rivalry between the FBI and CIA, but he downplayed its significance.
“In terms of the gossip and the finger-pointing, Level 3 staffers trying to protect, you know — trying to protect their hide, I don’t think that’s of concern,” he said. “That’s just typical Washington, D.C.”
The Sept. 11 attacks, however, could not have been stopped, Bush said.
“I’ve seen no evidence today that said this country could have prevented the attack,” he said.
… But No Commission Needed, Bush Says
Bush said there is no need to create an independent commission — for which some Democrats have called — to examine the U.S. response and investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks. He recommended limiting the scope of the investigation.
“I want a committee to investigate, not multiple committees to investigate, because I don’t want to tie up our team when we’re trying to fight this war on terror,” Bush said. “What I am concerned about is tying up valuable assets and time and possibly jeopardizing sources of intelligence.”
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) said that an “overwhelming majority” of Democrats support an independent commission. Recent information about evidence and clues missed by the FBI and CIA before the Sept. 11 attacks strengthen the rationale for its creation, he said.
Extra Attention
During a closed staff meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, FBI officials said that soon after the Sept. 11 attacks the bureau began an internal investigation into whether FBI headquarters had mishandled the 2001 Phoenix memorandum, Congressional aides and other officials said.
The memo, prepared by Phoenix FBI agent Kenneth Williams and addressed to David Frasca, chief of the FBI’s radical fundamentalist unit, said that al-Qaeda operatives might be training at U.S. flight schools, according to the New York Times.
Frasca, however, said the first time he saw the Phoenix memo was when an investigator from the Justice Department’s inspector general’s office showed him a copy. Pre-Sept. 11 FBI procedures had directed some communications to subordinates, Frasca said. He said he did not know, however, why he had never seen a memo addressed to him, the Times reported (Johnston/Van Natta, New York Times).
Also yesterday, the chairman of a House Appropriations Committee subcommittee responsible for the FBI’s budget requested an independent review of the bureau’s recently announced reorganization plan and said he would not approve the reallocation of $200 million within the FBI until he believed the plan “made sense” (see GSN, May 30).
House Appropriations Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary Subcommittee Chairman Frank Wolf (R-Va.) requested that the General Accounting Office and the nonprofit National Academy of Public Administration review the FBI reorganization plan. A probable June 14 hearing on the issue will include testimony from the two evaluators, FBI Director Robert Mueller and other witnesses, according to Wolf.
“I want to make sure we’re doing everything we can to get the best minds to look at this and to work with the FBI to make sure this works,” Wolf said.
One of the main concerns is whether the FBI’s reorganization plan, which calls for moving more than 1,400 personnel members to counterterrorism activities, would create gaps in other bureau responsibilities, Wolf said. Congress wants to be sure that state and local law enforcement, as well as other federal law-enforcement agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Administration, can handle the extra burden, sources said.
The FBI announced the plan May 29. Congress has 15 days from that date to either accept the reallocation of funding needed to carry out the plan or to suggest changes (Washington Post II, June 5).
The White House yesterday threatened to veto a $31.4 billion bill in the U.S. Senate designed to provide emergency supplemental funding for the war on terrorism and homeland defense. Republican leaders said the legislation includes extraneous expenditures unrelated to counterterrorism (see GSN, May 24).
“The president requested all that is needed and all that is affordable,” Mitchell Daniels, Office of Management and Budget director, said after speaking to Republican senators (Carl Hulse, New York Times, June 5).
The current Senate version of the bill, which would provide $4 billion more than the White House proposed, incorporates some security measures that the president did not request. For example, it includes $2 million for the Smithsonian Institution to start moving a collection of animals preserved in alcohol out of downtown Washington, where some people have said it poses a potential hazard.
Proponents of the bill said Congress has a right and duty to determine what it considers emergency spending. They said that arguing over various provisions would delay money for urgent needs, including U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, Coast Guard homeland security programs and aid to help New York recover from the Sept. 11 attacks.
“We have to move this train,” Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said yesterday. “These are resources going to agencies in America that people desperately need.”
Opponents, including the White House and several top Republicans, however, said the reason the bill is running over the president’s request is that some senators are using it to fund their own preferred programs, such as $16 million in aid to New England fishermen affected by federal restrictions.
“The surplus we relied on last year (has) largely disappeared,” Senator John McCain said (R-Ariz.). “It is unfortunate in a time of war our colleagues cannot curb their appetite for nonemergency, wasteful spending,” he said, calling extra provisions in the bill “war profiteering, plain and simple.”
The White House requested $27 billion for the emergency funding bill. The version that the House passed last month would provide $29 billion but would spend the excess $2 billion only if the White House considers it necessary.
Once the Senate votes on its version of the bill, the House of Representatives and the Senate must agree on a final version before the president would have an opportunity to sign or veto the legislation (Janet Hook, Los Angeles Times, June 5).
U.S. inspectors are set to begin screening cargo containers at Singapore’s seaport before they are shipped to the United States, U.S. Customs Service Commissioner Robert Bonner said yesterday (see GSN, May 31).
Under the agreement, U.S. Customs inspectors will be stationed at an overseas port for the first time, according to the Washington Post. U.S. inspectors have already begun cargo container inspections at three Canadian seaports.
“Singapore represents a very important milestone,” Bonner said, adding he hopes to sign similar agreements with other U.S. trading partners soon. “We need to put this program in place as broadly and as quickly as we can.”
Under the arrangement, U.S. inspectors will help mark “high-risk” cargo containers for more intensive searches by Singapore authorities, Bonner said. Inspectors will also check the containers using radiation detectors, X-ray machines and gamma-ray imaging systems to detect any weapons of mass destruction that might be inside, he said (see GSN, June 5). Customs expects to have inspectors stationed in Singapore early this summer, officials said.
A majority of the sea traffic into the United States comes from European and Asian ports, according to the Post (see GSN, Jan. 31). As part of a new container security plan, Bonner is working to develop similar inspector-stationing agreements with the governments of 20 seaports that account for 60 percent of all cargo container traffic into U.S. ports, the Post reported.
Customs officials are expected to meet today with officials from Hong Kong, the biggest exporter of sea cargo containers to the United States, according to the Post. Singapore is the third largest exporter to the United States, sending 330,000 containers annually (Washington Post, June 5).
Cargo Security System Test a Success
Also yesterday, the U.S. Transportation Department announced successful completion of a test of a new cargo container security system.
The test, conducted by the department’s Intelligent Transportation Systems program, evaluated the use of electronic seals (E-Seals) on cargo containers as they traveled from ports of origin to the United States. The seals transmit shipment information to reader devices and alert inspectors if a shipment has been compromised.
“This new technology will help to enhance the security of our nation’s transportation system by enabling us to track cargo shipments into the United States,” Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta said in a press statement. “E-Seals are just one part of our department’s security-focused program that applies both technology and human capital to safeguard America’s transportation system” (U.S. Transportation Department release, June 4).
By Molly M. Peterson
National Journal News Service
A bipartisan bill to make it easier for federal agencies to share counterterrorism information with state and local officials won quick approval from a House Judiciary subcommittee Tuesday.
The Homeland Security Information Sharing Act would direct the president, the attorney general and the director of central intelligence to develop procedures for federal agencies to share classified or sensitive threat information with certain state and local officials, and vice versa. The Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee approved the measure by a unanimous voice vote.
The bill would require agencies to declassify information before sharing it by redacting the names of sources and intelligence-gathering methods. Bill sponsors said agencies would be required to use existing declassification technologies, such as those used for sharing information with NATO allies and Interpol. They would also be required to use existing networks, such as the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, to share that information with state and local officials.
“With the recent press reports about what information the government had prior to Sept. 11, it has become abundantly clear that better information sharing among government agencies, and with state and local officials, needs to be a higher priority,” said Representative Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) during a hearing that preceded the markup.
Chambliss co-authored the legislation with Represenative Jane Harman (D-Calif.). Neither Chambliss nor Harman are members of the Judiciary Committee, but they both serve on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence’s Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security.
“The United States government has vast amounts of information that might be useful in stopping suspected terrorists and criminals across the nation,” Chambliss said. “Yet old, outdated computer systems cannot talk to each other, share information or quickly provide alerts and warnings to officials who need to know.”
Harman testified that although federal agencies typically gather the most intelligence on suspected terrorists, state and local officials are the most likely to encounter those individuals. She noted, for example, that one Sept. 11 hijacker had been stopped for speeding by a Maryland state trooper two days before the attacks. The trooper did not detain the individual because he had not been informed that the individual was listed on a CIA watch list of suspected terrorists.
“Every act of terrorism is local — it happens in a neighborhood in someone’s city,” Harman said. “These people need good information. They have to know what to be looking for.”
Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) is one of several Judiciary Committee members who have signed on as cosponsors of the bill. He said the legislation would improve federal, state and local officials’ ability to “prevent, detect and disrupt terrorist attacks.”
Prior to approving the bill, the committee adopted, by voice vote, an amendment by Smith that clarified several provisions concerning classified, unclassified and sensitive information.
| 
Back to top
