|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
White House, Sept. 11 Panel Seemingly Differ on Powers For New Intelligence Director By Mike Nartker WASHINGTON — While the White House yesterday came out in favor of the Sept. 11 commission’s recommendation to create a national director of intelligence, the Bush administration and the panel have differing views over what authority that position should possess (see GSN, Aug. 2). Less than two weeks after the Sept. 11 commission issued its report, President George W. Bush announced his support for two of the panel’s key intelligence reform recommendations — the creation of a national intelligence director and the development of a national counterterrorism center. As outlined by Bush, the new intelligence director would be separate from the head of the CIA, and would work to coordinate domestic and foreign intelligence operations, budgets and information-gathering priorities among the various intelligence agencies. In its report, though, the Sept. 11 panel recommended that the national intelligence director be given authority over the national intelligence budget, with the ability to apportion and reprogram funding to and among the various intelligence agencies. During a White House press conference following Bush’s announcement yesterday, senior administration officials seemingly rejected providing the new intelligence director with full budget authority. “I think that the national intelligence director will have tremendous clout in developing a budget,” said White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, who headed a Cabinet-level task force that reviewed the commission’s recommendations. “I do not think that this person should replace the budget director for the United States,” Card added. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice agreed, saying that she believed the new director would “strongly influence any final budget.” The White House and the Sept. 11 commission also appear to disagree on what personnel authority the new intelligence director should have. The commission recommended that the new director should “approve and submit nominations to the president” of individuals to head the various intelligence agencies, such as the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. While agreeing that the new director should have a role in such a process, Card rejected the idea that the new director should approve the heads of agencies located within existing departments. “We do not want to do anything that would undermine the chain of command and the responsibilities that go with the Department of Defense, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the secretary of the Homeland Security Department and the other intelligence agencies,” Card said. Representative Jane Harman (Calif.), the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said yesterday that it is “crucial” to provide the new intelligence director with “real” budgetary and management authority. “We shouldn’t repeat the mistakes of the drug czar — who has no real authority — or the Department of Homeland Security — which is a huge new bureaucracy,” she said in a statement. Increased budgetary authority is the “main justification” for creating a national director of intelligence, said Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy. Without such authority, the new director would “replicate” some of the existing weaknesses of the director of central intelligence “at a higher level,” he said today. “It’s possible to make the status quo worse,” Aftergood added. Administration officials yesterday defended Bush’s stated position that the new intelligence director should not be located within the office of the president — contrary to the Sept. 11 commission’s recommendation. “He [Bush] talked about how he wanted to continue to see the best unvarnished advice possible. And that’s why he thought this structure was the best way to set it up, where you would have the national intelligence director separate from the White House itself,” White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. According to Card, locating the new director outside of the executive office would help that person to resist “pressure” from the White House “staff” or “activity.” He also rejected suggestions that the new director would lose access to the president by being located outside of the White House. “The attorney general, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, the secretary of homeland security all have appropriate and important access to the president. And the national intelligence director should have important, regular, consistent and important access to the president,” Card said. Card also said that Congress, which would need to revise the 1947 National Security Act that established the CIA director as the principal intelligence adviser to the president, would largely develop the final shape of the new intelligence director position. Several committees in both houses of Congress are scheduled to hold hearings this month on the commission’s proposals, with the aim of producing legislation by the end of the year. “I think the president has clearly made a decision that would allow for the national intelligence director to have an awful lot of clout, an awful lot of power, but it would require Congress to consider the president’s proposal and the 9/11 commission’s proposal in order for that position to live up to the expectations that they might have or we might have,” he said.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
