Panel ponders mechanics of naming Intelligence Director
The new director would serve as an adviser who oversees domestic and foreign intelligence.
Members of Congress on Monday debated the feasibility of creating a post for a national intelligence director, as recommended by the commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
While criticism of intelligence failures triggered the proposal for the office, critical questions have emerged about how to implement a reorganization. "We want to create a position with real, not just symbolic, authority," Sen. Susan Collins, R- Maine, said at a Senate Governmental Affairs Committee hearing.
As proposed by the commission, the new director would serve as an adviser who oversees domestic and foreign intelligence. The director could hire and fire intelligence personnel and control the $40 billion intelligence budget.
Budgetary authority for the director is at the center of debate about the recommendation. With more 80 percent of the intelligence budget in the Defense Department, any reorganization would almost guarantee turf wars among competing interests, intelligence experts told the committee.
Execution of the budget is less important than the ability of the director to redirect money as needed, said R. James Woolsey, a former director of central intelligence. Today, it takes roughly five months to move money within agencies, he said.
As the threat of terrorism moves away from a more military threat, the methods of gathering information also will need to change, experts told the committee. And as the lines between tactical and strategic intelligence become less defined, the new director would have to determine national priorities and adjudicate differences among agencies, they said.
The debate "comes back to whether terrorism is the number one" priority, said Stansfield Turner, another former director of central Intelligence. "National interests [must] err on the side of giving [the director] more authority."
The experts concluded that the creation of a national intelligence director with explicit budgetary authority is needed to successfully reorganize U.S. intelligence, but they noted that oversight of the intelligence community needs further streamlining. Some 80 congressional committees and subcommittees have jurisdiction over the Homeland Security Department.
Furthermore, the panel agreed that the director's authority must remain independent and objective. While the director should report to the president, the office should not be at the Cabinet level, they said, recommending that the president appoint the director.
To address the imminent turf wars, Woolsey recommended joint authority between the director and the Defense secretary. He also said Defense should have be able to dispute the national intelligence director's budgetary decisions. Department and agency heads would know best who to appoint within their own agencies, he said.
"If this model is adopted, the Defense Department must be reassured that tactical intelligence will remain [within the department]," added William Webster, a former director of the FBI and CIA.