 | |
| |
TechnologyDaily Mobile
The Politics Of Intelligence Reform
by Greta Wodele
A short session for Congress and the looming fall election could impede action this year on the recommendations by the independent panel that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But the commission's report has intensified jockeying in the race for the White House and Congress, with politicians from both parties scurrying to act so as not to appear lax on fighting terrorism over the August congressional recess.
The commissioners and families of Sept. 11 victims -- both of which have demonstrated significant political muscle -- vowed to press officials on the issue.
Bush And Kerry Jockey For Advantage
President Bush and Congress already have reacted to the report. Bush last week embraced the commission's top proposals to create a national intelligence director and a national counter-terrorism center. The president added in "coming days" he would sign off by executive order on other proposals that do not require congressional approval.
Bush also called on Congress to reorganize itself to bolster oversight of a reformed intelligence community and homeland security policies. He asked lawmakers to review the commission's July report during the August break in order to consider legislation this fall.
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry of Massachusetts quickly responded to Bush's comments in order to draw distinctions between himself and the president on their approaches. Kerry said he would appoint a Cabinet-level intelligence director; Bush said he would like the director to sit outside the White House to avoid political influence and disrupting the chain of command with the Pentagon.
Kerry also accused Bush of lacking a sense of urgency on the recommendations because he declined to call Congress into a special session to quickly enact the proposals. Bush argued that House and Senate committees have scheduled numerous and unusual hearings during August to examine the recommendations and plan to debate legislation this fall. Senate leaders have tasked the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee to ready legislation by Oct. 1, and several lawmakers already have touted their own legislation on the issues.
The congressional hearings speak to one of the key problems outlined by the commission -- too many committees have jurisdiction over intelligence and homeland security issues. Bush said last week that Homeland Security officials in 2003 testified before 88 congressional committees and subcommittees more than 140 times.
The commission echoed Bush's comments that the arrangement takes precious time from the department's mission to thwart a terrorist attack. "One expert witness (not a member of the administration) told us that this is perhaps the single largest obstacle impeding the department's successful development," the panel's report said. The commissioners added that Congress should establish permanent intelligence committees with nonpartisan staff.
A Renewed Appeal For Permanency
The commission's findings could compel House leaders in January to make the temporary House Homeland Security Committee permanent -- a position that lawmakers on the panel have been pushing for since its inception in early 2003. But other House committee chairmen oppose having one permanent panel and relinquishing their jurisdictional authority. The most outspoken critic is House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young, D-Alaska.
This summer, California Republican Christopher Cox, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, faced wrenching negotiations with Young and other chairmen over bills he introduced and hoped the House would pass before the August recess. Cox, who called one measure a "parable" for making his panel permanent, sees the so-called 9/11 report as a new driving force in his campaign.
"I am confident that my colleagues in the House will respond to the appeal of the president, [GOP House leaders] and the 9/11 commission to adjust the Homeland Security Committee's jurisdiction to meet the critical new priorities of U.S. national security," Cox said in a statement.
But House leaders will not make the decision until Congress reconvenes in January for the 109th session. By that time, the vigor behind the 9/11 report could wane.
In the interim, when lawmakers return in September they face tremendous political pressure to act on the commission's recommendations before the November election. Partisan differences and turf battles that arose this summer presumably could re-emerge this fall.
Before the commission released its report July 22, several lawmakers drafted legislation to create the national intelligence director. California Democrat Dianne Feinstein also wrote a measure that she introduced with a handful of her Senate colleagues.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss, R-Fla., and ranking Democrat Jane Harman of California offered competing bills. And last week Harman accused Goss of delaying the committee from marking up the bills. "The time for action is now," she insisted, arguing that the panel should skip the scheduled hearings later this month and move right to votes. Goss cautioned against Congress acting in "unnecessary haste" on intelligence overhaul.
Unity For Reps. Cox And Turner?
While the proposal for a national intelligence director has created the most buzz, the 9/11 panel also called for a national screening system deployed with biometric technology, advanced technologies for every mode of transportation, and a revamped federal funding process for state and local emergency workers. The panel's report also signaled support for existing controversial initiatives such as a database for pre-screening airline passengers and the anti-terrorism law known as the USA PATRIOT Act.
On funding for "first responders" to emergencies, the commission's recommendation resembles a measure, H.R. 3266, drafted by Cox's panel last year. The bill would base funding on risks and vulnerabilities rather than current factors such as population. Federal assistance should "supplement state and local resources based on the risks or vulnerabilities," the commissioners said. "Congress should not use this money as pork barrel."
Cox attempted to reach an eleventh-hour deal on his bill last month with Democrats after weeks of negotiations with other Republican chairmen. But Texas Rep. Jim Turner, the ranking Democrat on Cox's panel, balked. He argued that it would have reduced funding for high-risk areas like Washington and New York. Cox accused Democrats of playing election-year politics with homeland security.
A week before the encounter, negotiations between Cox and Turner also collapsed over their panel's first-ever authorization measure for the Homeland Security Department. Cox wanted to debate non-controversial sections of the legislation, but Turner and his rank-and-file Democrats demanded an open debate and the right to offer more than 60 amendments.
Democrats on the panel last year issued a handful of reports assessing the Bush administration's homeland security activities and argued that their amendments would close existing "security gaps" at railways, ports and the nation's borders. Cox accused them of using the amendments to obstruct GOP efforts to bolster security for political reasons, and Turner countered that Republicans were reluctant to oppose amendments that appeared to further protect the nation.
After the communication breakdown, the Sept. 11 commission released its report calling for the revamped funding process for first responders and more attention to cargo, rail and other modes of security. The recommendations could help resuscitate negotiations between Cox and Turner.
"I certainly hope [the 9/11 report] will call attention to what we were trying to do," Turner said. And Cox added in a recent Wall Street Journal column, "The 9/11 commission has performed its most central function brilliantly: It has made action inevitable," he wrote.
NEW FEATURE
-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-
