Intelligence Reform Talks Threatened

A fierce dispute over the powers of a new national intelligence director threatened Friday to derail congressional negotiations aimed at completing an intelligence reform bill before the Nov. 2 elections.

Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, argued in a letter to a key House Republican negotiator that it was critically important that the budgets of three intelligence agencies providing combat support -- the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the National Reconnaissance Office -- go through the defense secretary.

That position seemed to put Myers at odds with the White House, which has publicly embraced giving the national intelligence director authority to create and allocate the budgets for the intelligence agencies.

Both the House and Senate passed bills earlier this month in response to recommendations made by the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission, which found that the nation’s 15 spy agencies’ failure to share intelligence had contributed to the success of the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

The Pentagon currently controls about 80% of the intelligence budget, a classified figure that is estimated to be about $40 billion annually.

The Senate bill would give a national intelligence director control over much of that budget. The House bill would have the intelligence budgets go through the Defense Department, with the national intelligence director’s concurrence.

House and Senate negotiators also remain divided over tough provisions in the House passed bill on immigration, law enforcement and border security.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the committee working to reconcile the Senate and House bills, acknowledged that wide differences remained over a variety of issues after a week of negotiations. He said members would not meet again before Monday.

Supporters of reform have pushed to have a bill signed by President Bush before the Nov. 2 elections, arguing that the political pressure to act would dissipate afterward.

Negotiators say one of the toughest disputes is over how to ensure that a strong national intelligence director would not disrupt the chain of command, particularly between the national intelligence system and combat troops. Although the White House has publicly said it prefers the strong authority the Senate bill would give a director, negotiators say, the Pentagon has been quietly lobbying to restrict that authority.

“At one point, we told the White House that we are hearing one thing from them and something else from their senior cabinet member on defense,” said one frustrated senior Republican aide in the House who spoke on condition of anonymity. The aide said that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had kept up a “whispering campaign” with lawmakers about the intelligence bill.

Congressional negotiators said that the Pentagon and its supporters in Congress were lobbying “big time,” in the words of Rep. Jane Harman of Venice, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, to limit the authority of a national intelligence director.

“I’ve said before that the dirty word in Washington is spelled ‘T-U-R-F,’ and we’re still seeing it,” Harman said.

But defense officials said more was at stake than turf. “We’re very concerned that any reform improves intelligence getting to troops on the ground and does not detract from it,” said a senior defense official who requested anonymity.

Asked about the Pentagon’s lobbying effort, another defense official, who also requested anonymity, said that much was at stake for the defense establishment. “We’re always going to inform the debate about matters that are of critical importance to us, and nothing is of more critical importance than to make sure our troops get access to the best intelligence,” he said.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, (D-Conn.), who co-authored the Senate intelligence bill, said the authority of the national intelligence director was the subject of “some of the most difficult and passionate debates we’ve had over the last few days.”

But Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the bill’s other co-author and the Senate’s lead negotiator, said she remained committed to creating a national intelligence director with strong authority.

“I continue to believe that if you create a new national intelligence director that lacks the budgetary, personnel and other authorities necessary to do the job effectively, all you’re doing is creating another layer of bureaucracy,” Collins said.

Hoekstra acknowledged that House Republicans feared that a national intelligence director with too much power -- who differed with the defense secretary over when and how to use intelligence assets such as satellites -- might jeopardize the troops during wartime. But he said he believed it was possible to create a strong national intelligence director who would pose no threat to the military’s access to intelligence.

Hoekstra and the other negotiators said Friday that time was running out for them to work out their remaining differences before the elections.

“We still have some very contentious issues and ... we still have some differences to work through,” Hoekstra said at a news conference.

“It is now up to President Bush,” the 9/11 Steering Committee, a group of family members of Sept. 11 victims who support the Senate bill, said in a statement Friday. “He must demonstrate that he deserves to be reelected. We call upon him to get his House in order and intercede with this maverick contingent of members of his own party who are impeding the process of making America safer.”