|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Lawmakers Fail to Reach Compromise on Intelligence Reform Bill by November Elections By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — U.S. lawmakers said Friday that they were disappointed about the lack of progress made to date in reaching a compromise intelligence reform bill, but added that they believed a bill could be ready for final approval when Congress reconvenes later this month for a “lame-duck” session (see GSN, Oct. 27). Over the past two weeks, House and Senate negotiators have sought to work out the differences in their separate intelligence reform bills, which seek to restructure the U.S. intelligence community through the creation of a national intelligence director and a national counterterrorism center as proposed by the Sept. 11 commission. Lawmakers had previously expressed hope that an intelligence reform bill could be completed and signed by President George W. Bush by the tomorrow’s elections. “It is very disappointing that we have been unable to negotiate an agreement to date. But I am heartened by the determination of each of us to keep negotiating towards the goal of reaching an agreement,” Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins (R-Maine) said in a conference call with reporters. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) described the differences between the two intelligence reform bills as “complex” and “difficult.” “We’re realistic about the work — significant work needs to be done. Compromise needs to be made. But with all of us working, we believe that it is possible — it will be difficult, but it is possible that a bill can be completed,” he said. One of the main sticking points so far in resolving the differences between the House and Senate bills centers on how much of a role the defense secretary should have in allocating funds to various intelligence agencies. The Senate has proposed that intelligence funds should be under the “direct jurisdiction” of the new national intelligence director, who in turn would allocate them directly to the various intelligence agencies. The House of Representatives, however, has proposed that the national intelligence director should allocate intelligence funds through the heads of various departments, including the defense secretary, rather than directly to the intelligence agencies. “The initial hurdle we’re facing is the one that intelligence reformers faced for the last half century, which is: Can you have genuine intelligence reform and now a strong national intelligence director, and allow the Department of Defense to maintain some form of budget authority over the intelligence budget?” said Senator Joseph Lieberman (Conn.), the top Democrat on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. Last week, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers sent a letter to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter calling for the defense secretary to continue to have a role in the allocation of intelligence funds in any compromise intelligence reform bill. Such a “critical provision,” Myers wrote, “would allow the combat support agencies to continue their outstanding support to the warfighters, our ongoing counterterrorism efforts and the men and women of our nation’s armed forces serving in harm’s way.” In addition, former Sept. 11 commission staff director Philip Zelikow said in a message sent to Senate staff members last week that differences over a “pass-through” arrangement for intelligence funds “should not be a reason for bringing down the whole bill.” Both the Sept. 11 commission and the White House earlier this month, though, came out in favor of the budget authorities for the new national intelligence director as envisioned in the Senate bill. The House and Senate also differ as to whether the overall total of the intelligence budget should be declassified, with the Senate and the Sept. 11 commission supporting the move and the House and the White House opposed. In addition, the two bills also continue to differ on several aspects of the planned national counterterrorism center. Late Friday, House negotiators submitted a second proposal to resolve the differences between the two intelligence reform bills, which included support for the Senate-backed provisions to have the director of the national counterterrorism center be confirmed by the Senate and to have the director report to the president on joint counterterrorism operations. The proposal does not indicate a shift, though, on the stance of House negotiators regarding how intelligence funds should be allocated or whether the total intelligence budget is to be declassified. Senate negotiators are expected to respond to the House proposal early this week, according to Hoekstra. Lieberman said Friday that if lawmakers were unable to complete an intelligence reform bill by the end of the lame-duck session, it would represent a “shameful failure” for Congress. “We are very accustomed to using a phrase in Congress — ‘Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.’ In this case, the quest for the perfect may well be the enemy of the safety and security of the American people, and therefore we have to commit ourselves to a quest for the good, for the best we can do before the lame-duck session to improve our security,” he said.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
