Politics hurting intelligence bill
Congress has long known that intelligence gathering in the United States was in need of comprehensive overhaul. Before the 9-11 Commission’s report, a bipartisan congressional report found many of the same problems. And before that the Scowcroft Commission recommended substantial changes.
The 9-11 Commission’s recommendations, announced in August, were met with the usual foot-dragging. Now Congress is moving too quickly, and the catalyst appears to be the Nov. 2 elections. Members of Congress want to have concrete reforms they can point to on the campaign trail.
The Senate is putting together a bill that closely follows the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission, but the House is working up a version with significant differences and it includes controversial provisions that merit lengthy, thoughtful debate.
Meanwhile, the Bush administration has signaled that it is troubled by provisions in both bills. The nation needs to get this right the first time, so it’s better to wait four more weeks — until after the Nov. 2 elections — to proceed.
The House bill in particular is where politics appears to be trumping thoughtful deliberation. Democrats still bear the bruises over the formation of the Office of Homeland Security and how that debate was used against them in the 2002 elections, where they lost control of the Senate. They are fearful that Republicans are planning a repeat performance — and with good reason.
“The Democrats got spanked hard on homeland security,” said a spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. “I don’t think they want to get spanked again.”
The goal, it seems, is to get representatives on record as voting against reform by loading up the bill with unpalatable choices. Among the controversial provisions: making it easier to ship foreigners abroad to countries that practice torture, expanding law enforcement powers and imposing immigration restrictions.
Those provisions go well beyond what is in the Senate bill, and they have been criticized by 9-11 Commission members. The House bill would also establish a weaker central authority by limiting discretion over the budget and personnel decisions.
Republican Rep. Christopher Shays has it right when he says House leadership seems more interested in killing reform than implementing it. “I have concerns that some on my side of the aisle want there to be some poison pills.”
Even if House leadership is sincere in its approach, the gulf with the Senate and the administration is too wide to close in a responsible manner before the election.
Congress waited too long to begin working on intelligence reform. Now it is unnecessarily rushing the job in a politically charged atmosphere. The nation would be better served if such legislation were kept in a safe place until the political storm passed.