|
Panel dismayed by bush reaction to intel czar { August 4 2004 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/08/04/MNGUO82C7B1.DTLhttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/08/04/MNGUO82C7B1.DTL
9/11 panel dismayed by Bush's reaction
INTELLIGENCE CHIEF: Director needs real clout, members say
- Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Wednesday, August 4, 2004
Washington -- Two members of the Sept. 11 commission criticized President Bush's proposal to create a national intelligence director, telling Congress on Tuesday that the White House plan fails to give the new spy chief the executive powers needed to revamp the nation's intelligence agencies.
Without the power to set budgets and hire and fire senior managers, the new intelligence czar will lack the clout to make major changes at the nation's 15 spy agencies, the commissioners told lawmakers at the first House hearing prompted by the panel's 567-page report on the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
"The person that has the responsibility needs the authority," Democratic commissioner Bob Kerrey, a former Nebraska senator, told the House Government Reform Committee. "Absent that, they're not going to be able to get the job done."
Republican commissioner John Lehman, a former Navy secretary who has been seen as a possible replacement for retiring CIA Director George Tenet, also urged the president to reconsider his proposal to base the director outside the White House. The commission recommended establishing the position within the White House to keep the director from being overshadowed by powerful Cabinet members, such as the defense secretary.
"Our recommendations are not a Chinese menu," Lehman said. "They are a whole system. If all of the important elements are not adopted, it makes it very difficult for the others to succeed."
The testimony by the two commissioners, who were speaking for the 10- member bipartisan panel known officially as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, is likely to have significant influence with Congress, which must approve any legislation establishing the intelligence director.
Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, praised the president's support for a new intelligence director, but indicated he will back the commission's efforts to shake up the way intelligence is handled.
"The key to success ... is making sure we're not simply repackaging what we have now," Davis said. "We need to avoid creating another layer of bureaucracy. We need to align authority with responsibility to make sure information is reaching all the people that it needs to reach."
Lawmakers of both parties appear generally supportive of two of the major recommendations of the commission: creating an intelligence czar and a new counterterrorism center to analyze domestic and foreign intelligence gathered by the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency as well as state and local law enforcement. But the details of the proposals -- especially the role and powers assigned to the intelligence czar -- are already being hotly debated.
Many Democrats, including Democratic nominee John Kerry, are urging the president and Republican lawmakers to accept the commission's recommendation that the director have a robust role, including the power to set the nation's intelligence budget, hire and fire top leaders at the CIA and other agencies, and make key decisions on where staff and resources should be deployed in fighting terrorism.
"In this city, if you have a fancy title, but you're not in the chain of command and you don't control the budget, you're a figurehead," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, the House Government Reform Committee's ranking Democrat. "Another figurehead is not what the 9/11 Commission recommended and what our nation needs."
But civil libertarians are expressing concern that putting one official in charge of domestic and foreign intelligence could lead to increased spying on American citizens. Lawmakers of both parties are also worried that a powerful intelligence czar in the White House could lead to abuses such as the Iran-Contra scandal or lead to faulty intelligence, such as the estimates of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war.
"Placing the center and the directorate within the executive office of the president may shift the intelligent operations closer to the politics within the White House -- and may influence the intelligence gathering system," said Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa.
Bush and his aides cited this concern about politicizing intelligence as a primary reason for proposing that the new chief be housed outside the White House. The administration also views the new chief as an adviser rather than a Cabinet-level manager -- one of the reasons for failing to give the new director the authority to hire and fire others.
Under the current system, the CIA director serves as the president's intelligence director. The commission has argued that the CIA director has too many jobs -- running an agency, overseeing all intelligence gathering and serving as chief intelligence analyst to the president. Commissioners say the new intelligence director would not be tied to any of the agencies and could provide a more balanced reading of intelligence.
But some critics believe the new director could complicate decision- making by adding another layer of bureaucracy. In addition to the new intelligence director, the commission's report calls for three new deputy intelligence directors -- one for foreign intelligence, one for defense intelligence and one for domestic intelligence.
At a Senate Governmental Affairs Committee hearing Tuesday, several counterterrorism officials raised concerns about the organizational chart proposed by the commission, saying it could force the intelligence agencies to serve too many bosses.
"I do not believe that (the commission's) national intelligence director structure is workable," said Philip Mudd, deputy director of the CIA's counterterrorist center. "It's too diffuse an effort."
But Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the commission, testified the new structure would help break down the walls between agencies that have hampered intelligence sharing.
"We think right now that balance of power is heavily tilted toward departmental priorities, to the department that owns their budget," Zelikow told the Senate panel, "and we suggest that that balance needs to be altered so that national priorities are dominant."
Kerrey said lawmakers should prepare to be lobbied heavily against the panel's suggestions by top officials at the Pentagon, CIA and other agencies who will resist giving up any of their current authority.
"I know that Secretary (of Defense Donald) Rumsfeld is going to oppose this," Kerrey said. "And if they win one more time, if the (Department of Defense) wins one more time, then next time there's a dustup and there's a failure, don't call the director of Central Intelligence up here. Kick the crap out of (the defense department) because they're the one with the statutory authority over the budget."
E-mail Zachary Coile at zcoile@sfchronicle.com.
Page A - 1
|
|
