The Sept. 11 commission's call for reforming congressional oversight of intelligence and homeland security faces powerful resistance in Congress, with some key lawmakers all but declaring it dead on arrival.
The widespread opposition emerged in interviews last week and could punch a big hole in the commission's agenda for making America safer against terrorism, even if Congress adopts its chief recommendations affecting the executive branch. The commissioners cautioned in their final report in July that the other reforms suggested -- including creation of a national intelligence director and counterterrorism center -- "will not work" without the change in congressional oversight.
President Bush met with congressional leaders from both parties at the White House on Wednesday to discuss legislation for intelligence reform.
(Ron Edmonds -- AP)
Despite that warning, key legislators have given a frosty-to-dismissive reception to the bipartisan panel's two main proposals for changes in congressional oversight of intelligence-gathering and homeland security operations: "Either Congress should create a joint committee for intelligence," the committee wrote, "or it should create House and Senate committees with combined authorizing and appropriations powers."
Granting one committee the dual powers of setting program priorities and spending levels is a radical idea in Congress, and many lawmakers are reacting with alarm. They say the commission's recommendations are misguided and would result in a restricted, less inquisitive oversight of intelligence and security matters.
The commission's recommendations would also force powerful committees, including Appropriations, Armed Services and Foreign Relations, to surrender some of their jealously guarded turf, although senior lawmakers say this is not their chief concern.
Currently, negotiations take place between leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees and authorizing committees to determine new and ongoing intelligence-gathering programs and recommended spending levels. But spending levels for human intelligence-gathering, spy satellites and all other activities are set by the House and Senate Appropriations committees.
Under one of the commission's suggestions, all of these activities would be consolidated under Congress's intelligence committees.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.), who met Wednesday with Bush and other congressional leaders to discuss outlines of a legislative package responding to the commission recommendations, said combining spending and authorizing powers in a new intelligence committee "is not part of this proposal."
Not only would he and fellow committee members resist the idea, Young said, but the newly named Intelligence Committee chairman, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), has told colleagues that "he doesn't want to be an appropriator."
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) was equally unreceptive. "I don't think it will fly," he said.
Key Democrats had similar views. Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), the second-ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said of the proposal to combine authorizing and appropriating powers in one committee: "How does that work? . . . I just can't imagine" Congress accepting it.
Even lower-ranking appropriators who support the commission's suggestions see little hope. "Knowing appropriators, there's going to be tremendous problems with taking away appropriating powers," said Rep. David Vitter (R-La.). A well-placed GOP House aide, speaking on background because of the issue's political sensitivity, was more blunt, saying the recommendation "doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell."
Yet the Sept. 11 commission's alternative proposal -- combining the House and Senate intelligence committees into a single panel -- seems to be faring no better. "I haven't heard much interest in the joint committee idea," said Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee.
Young said the proposed single committee "would not be my preference." The House and Senate have too many differences and traditions, he said. "We operate under one set of rules," he said, "and the Senate operates under another."