Bill to reform U.S. intelligence should not die

Friday, November 26, 2004

Republican Sen. Susan M. Collins says she is "crushed" that sweeping reforms of the nation's intelligence agencies appear to be dead.

We share her shock, her disappointment and her view that the legislation is much too important to die in Congress.

Working with U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., Collins is the chief author of what would be the most extensive overhaul of the nation's spy and intelligence-gathering network in more than 60 years.

The bill, approved last month in the Senate by an overwhelming 96-2 vote, would create a national counterterrorism center and the position of national intelligence director. That director would coordinate most of the nation's nonmilitary intelligence agencies, including the CIA.

The bill grew out of recommendations by the 9/11 commission, which urged that U.S. intelligence be consolidated rather than having 15 agencies.

As of Saturday morning, things looked good. Collins, Lieberman and other lawmakers, working until the wee hours, reached what they thought was a compromise on the reforms. They believed the bill would win approval in the House of Representatives.

Later that day, things collapsed when House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., refused to bring the bill to a House vote. Hastert made this decision after a small but influential group of House Republicans, led by Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter of California and Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, opposed parts of the law.

Hunter said the bill would take too much budget authority from the Pentagon, which he argued would undermine American troops in battle.

Military leaders and their biggest supporters in Congress, such as Hunter, have opposed changes in how the Pentagon now spends about 80 percent of the country's estimated $40 billion intelligence budget.

Sensenbrenner, meanwhile, called for adoption of several law-enforcement and immigration measures that had been dropped from the compromise bill.

Having been in Congress for more than 25 years, Sensenbrenner should know that immigration issues should be separated from the intelligence bill. These issues should not be the reason that intelligence reform does not come to a House vote.

Still, Hastert decided against calling a vote even though President Bush supports the legislation. The House speaker said he is concerned the bill would impede the flow of information to troops in battle.

Showing a willingness to challenge some of her party's more-influential members, Collins said the criticisms by Hunter, Sensenbrenner and Hastert are "disappointing," "irresponsible" and "misinformation."

She is right.

While the intelligence reform bill appears doomed, Congress will have a final opportunity to approve it because of a flaw in the massive spending bill approved Saturday. Lawmakers will return Dec. 7 to fix the spending bill and could also vote on intelligence reform.

It will take plenty of hard persuading by Collins, Lieberman, others in Congress and especially Bush for the reforms to have a chance this year. The president must show Hunter, Sensenbrenner and Hastert that they are acting irresponsibly by blocking the legislation.

The bill would have probably passed in the House had Hastert not backed away from it, apparently in an effort to preserve party unity.

That is not the kind of leadership voters should accept.

The agreement on intelligence reform is a good one. It should be approved by the House of Representatives so it can be sent to the president's desk.