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."
.
|
