Post-9/11 intelligence expansion must end, experts say

The U.S. government should rein in or scale back spending on intelligence agencies and private contractors, essentially ending a massive expansion of security operations since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a panel of current and former public officials said Tuesday.

"My impression is we should level off, if not cut back, on intelligence," said former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., who co-chaired the national commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks.

"I think we're at the point where I would be skeptical that additional growth is needed in the intelligence community," added Hamilton, speaking on a panel hosted by the Bipartisan Policy Center. "It looks like we might have more [redundancy] than we need."

Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, said the government moved rapidly after the attacks to expand intelligence operations knowing that some steps were redundant. But he said it is time to pare back duplicative efforts.

"Now we're getting to the point where we're saying, does that extra step make sense?" said Thornberry, who is ranking member of the House Intelligence Tactical and Technical Intelligence Subcommittee.

Former New Jersey Republican Gov. Thomas Kean, who also co-chaired the 9/11 Commission, said he has started to see pushback in Congress to continued expansion of intelligence spending, as well as more questions about whether intelligence operations are effective.

"We may be reaching kind of a plateau in which we ask ourselves, are we really getting our money's worth in terms of security," Kean said.

His comments and those of Hamilton and Thornberry came as a series of articles in The Washington Post this week details the dramatic expansion of intelligence spending and lack of oversight.

Dennis Blair, who was pushed out as director of national intelligence in May, once disclosed that the government spends $75 billion on intelligence agencies and activities. But Hamilton said senior government officials are realizing that level of spending is unsustainable. He said CIA Director Leon Panetta, for example, is already planning for a different budget environment in coming years.

Tuesday's calls for ending the expansion of the nation's intelligence apparatus preceded the Senate Intelligence Committee's confirmation hearing Tuesday afternoon for retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, whom President Obama picked to be the next director of national intelligence.

"Who is really in charge right now? Is it the DNI?" Kean asked. "I'm not sure anybody is in charge right now."

Kean, Hamilton and Thornberry also agreed that Congress should pass an intelligence authorization bill to help control spending on intelligence operations, including on private contractors. An intelligence authorization bill has not been enacted since fiscal 2005.

"What it means is there's no oversight," Kean said.

House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is holding up the fiscal 2010 intelligence authorization bill because she wants to include language that would require the administration to brief all members of the House and Senate intelligence panels on covert spy activities. The White House has threatened to veto the bill is such language is included.

Thornberry said the bill should include congressional notification language that was agreed to by Democrats and Republicans in 2008. Under that agreement, the chairmen and ranking members of the intelligence panels would have the power to inform all committee members of covert operations if they agreed to do so.

Thornberry acknowledged that even this would draw White House opposition, but said he believes enough GOP lawmakers would back that language to override a veto.

He added that Congress should amend a 2004 intelligence reform law that created the director of national intelligence. The changes should clarify that the DNI has the authority to make changes to an intelligence agency's budget and personnel, Thornberry said.