Security - What's New - Archive

WomenMatter will continuously post updates on all this and other issues as we monitor the continuing philosophical and practical debates nationwide. Please check back often for updates. Past updates are available for reference on the Security Archives page.

Changes: Congress Turns to Face the New National Intelligence Director

Now that the 9/11 Commission’s final report has been finished, published, read, and debated, it’s time for Congress to implement changes.

Debates in the House and Senate prove that this will be no easy task, since lawmakers disagree about how to restructure the U.S. intelligence community.

The 9/11 Commission, to which the Bush administration was originally opposed, recommended the creation of a National Intelligence Director (NID) and a new intelligence center. Both Democrats and Republicans would like to accomplish this before the November elections so that party leaders can claim progress in the war on terror. But legislators are arguing over how much power to give the NID, and these disputes are not along party lines, but rather committee lines.

Turf battles

In the Senate, different committees want different powers for the new intelligence director. The Intelligence Committee, led by Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), wants a powerful NID, while the Armed Services Committee, chaired by John Warner (R-Virginia) wants to keep the NID from having too much control over military agencies.

For this reason, commentators are calling the congressional debates a "turf battle." Critics say that Senate committees are trying to prevent the intelligence overhaul from undermining their own power and that of their respective communities. For example, the Armed Services Committee clearly wants the armed services to maintain power over intelligence and security matters.

So Mr. Warner and fellow Armed Services committee member Carl Levin (D-Michigan) plan to offer amendments that would protect specific military programs from the budgetary authority of the NID.

The NID

The National Intelligence Director is likely to have control over various intelligence and security program budgets, including some in the FBI, CIA, and armed services. Many of those agencies fear losing budgetary and other forms of power, and are resisting the intelligence overhaul bill.

The White House was initially opposed to the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation that the NID have significant budgetary authority, but the administration now favors the idea.

Families of 9/11 victims have encouraged the White House to fully implement the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations, including its suggestion for a financially powerful NID.

While the White House endorses the Senate bill written by Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Joe Lieberman (D-Connecticut), the administration is concerned that the legislation is too detailed and may create an inflexible bureaucracy. Bush wants legislators to pass a broad bill that leaves some decisions to him and his advisors.

But lawmakers aren’t likely to leave too much decision making to the White House, since both sides of the aisle in both the Senate and the House want to have a say in how the NID position and office are created.

Amendments

An amendment proposed by Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) was widely defeated Wednesday, September 29, 2004. Specter proposed that the NID have control over the day-to-day operations of all intelligence agencies.

Most Senators objected to the amendment because it granted the NID too much responsibility. Further, opponents argued that the proposal was poorly drafted and therefore created considerable ambiguity and confusion about the NID’s duties. The measure was defeated 78-19.

Senate majority leader Bill Frist (R-Tennessee) reports that Senators have made over 300 amendment requests. Frist says he may have to limit amendments and debate – through a procedure called cloture – in order to move the legislation along in a timely manner.

Although both sides want to finish the project before the election, perhaps lawmakers’ various proposals for revamping national intelligence should be heard. After all, a well-organized intelligence system is essential to our homeland security, and once the intelligence community is restructured, it will likely operate under its new configuration for a long time.

What do you think?

Discuss these issues with other WomenMatter readers in one of our online forums. And if Security is important to you, sign up for an e alert, and we’ll keep you posted on the topic.

Make sure you register to vote and contact your representatives, because your voice matters.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To donate, click here.

Update Posted on: 10/05/2004