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