|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Lawmakers Hope To Reach Compromise on Intelligence Reform Bill This Week By Mike Nartker WASHINGTON — House and Senate negotiators are “hopeful” that a compromise intelligence reform bill can be completed by the end of the week, a spokeswoman for one of the Senate negotiators said today (see GSN, Oct. 21). House and Senate lawmakers have met every day this week to work out the differences in their separate intelligence reform bills, which seek to implement the recommendations put forth this summer by the Sept. 11 commission including the creation of a national intelligence director and a national counterterrorism center. The negotiations are set to continue with the aim of reaching a compromise bill by the end of the week, said Elissa Davidson, a spokeswoman for Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins (R-Maine). Davidson declined to comment on what, if any, progress was made during this week’s meetings. Lawmakers had previously expressed a desire to have a completed intelligence reform bill approved and ready for signature by President George W. Bush before the Nov. 2 elections — a deadline that lawmakers increasingly appear unlikely to meet, according to reports. Over the past several days, House and Senate lawmakers have exchanged compromise proposals on several of the differences in their two bills. Much of the debate has appeared to focus on the level of budgetary authority for the planned national intelligence director. The defense secretary, who oversees a number of U.S. intelligence agencies, would have greater input into how funds are distributed to various intelligence agencies under the House bill than is envisioned in the Senate bill. Collins and Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) this week criticized the proposal offered by House negotiators regarding the level of budgetary authority for the new intelligence director, saying the proposal “does not provide … the strong authority that the majority of Congress believes he or she should have and that the majority of Congress voted to support.” The House and Senate bills also continue to differ on several aspects of the planned national counterterrorism center, with the Senate in favor of the center’s director reporting directly to the president and the national intelligence director on planning joint counterterrorism operations, as well as having an active role in the selection of other top counterterrorism officials. Under the House bill, the counterterrorism center director would report to a deputy national intelligence director, and would have no role in the selection of other counterterrorism officials. In addition, no compromise has been reached on whether the total amount of the intelligence budget should be declassified — as supported by the Senate and the Sept. 11 commission but opposed by the House of Representatives and the White House. In a message sent Oct. 23 to Senate staff members and released yesterday by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), former Sept. 11 commission staff director Phillip Zelikow praised the House proposal, “with one major caveat” centering on the issue of declassifying the total intelligence budget. Once that issue is resolved, “the formula in the House offer … seems a relatively reasonable way to do the job,” wrote Zelikow. Members of the Sept. 11 commission, though, reiterated their support Monday for the language in the Senate bill concerning the planned authority for the new national intelligence director. “We do believe, and most people believe, I guess, that unless there is strong power, particularly budget power, for the national intelligence director, then they shouldn’t create the position,” said former panel Chairman Thomas Kean. Kean and other commissioners called on lawmakers to work quickly to complete a compromise bill. “We have reason to believe that the conferees are very, very close at this point. And it would be a tragedy for the country if they were not able to reach an agreement when they are actually so close,” he said. “They’ve just simply got to go that last inch and get an agreement.”
| ||||||||||
Back to top
