Patience Is Urged in Overhauling U.S. Spy Agencies

WASHINGTON —  The nation’s top military and intelligence officials warned senators Tuesday against a rapid restructuring of U.S. spy agencies during a hearing that also exposed fault lines within the Bush administration over whether the Pentagon should yield clout to a new intelligence director.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld cautioned lawmakers that sweeping reforms could disrupt U.S. operations as the nation continues to fight insurgents in Iraq and pursue terrorists in Afghanistan and other countries.

“We need to remember that we are considering these important matters ... while we are waging a war,” he told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “If we move unwisely and get it wrong, the penalty would be great.”

It was Rumsfeld’s most extensive remarks on the subject since President Bush this month endorsed the creation of an intelligence director who could take over agencies now under Pentagon control. Rumsfeld was wary of the changes.

Acting CIA Director John E. McLaughlin echoed Rumsfeld’s comment and challenged statements by members of the Sept. 11 commission that the reforms they recommended should be enacted without delay.

“The commission says that the country cannot be patient,” he said. “But to quote a saying I learned during my Army years: If you want it bad, you will get it bad.”

Their remarks, combined with similar statements of caution from Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), the Armed Services Committee chairman, represent an effort by the administration and key congressional allies to slow down a process expected to produce the most sweeping changes to the intelligence community in half a century.

More than a dozen congressional committees have convened hearings during the August recess to consider proposed reforms, with legislative leaders calling for possible votes this fall.

Many of the proposals would weaken the Pentagon’s power over the U.S. intelligence community. Nine of the United States’ 15 spy agencies are part of the Department of Defense, which controls more than 80% of the U.S. intelligence budget. Tuesday’s hearing provided a glimpse of the differences among senior officials in the Bush administration -- and key Republicans in Congress -- over the wisdom of those reforms.

Rumsfeld raised several arguments against giving the CIA director or a new intelligence czar exclusive authority over the budgets of the intelligence agencies and decisions on hiring and firing senior personnel.

The Defense secretary warned against any change that would weaken the link between military commanders and intelligence assets such as spy satellites and listening posts. Many of the problems that plague the intelligence community can be solved “quite apart from the budget question,” Rumsfeld said. He also contended that CIA directors already provided substantial input on intelligence budgets and hiring and firing decisions.

“The director of central intelligence today has very broad, extensive authorities,” Rumsfeld said. “They may be executed in varying ways by different [directors] over time, but in fact, in writing, there’s tremendous authority.”

McLaughlin, a CIA veteran who has served as acting chief of the agency since the resignation of George J. Tenet last month, acknowledged that CIA directors had significant input but said they had little practical control over the agencies they were supposed to coordinate.

“We have the authority to set the policies, but it’s difficult to enforce them,” McLaughlin said.

Asked whether the power to allocate money was necessary to make reforms meaningful, he replied, “If you want my personal view, I would say yes.”

Although Bush has backed the idea of creating an intelligence czar, he has not endorsed the Sept. 11 commission’s recommendation that the job be placed inside the White House or that the occupant of the position have budget control.

The proposal to create a national intelligence director also divides key Republicans in Congress. Warner, whose committee stands to lose clout over billions of dollars in intelligence spending, has expressed little enthusiasm for the idea.

During Tuesday’s hearing, Warner instead endorsed the idea of elevating the CIA director, and giving the position greater say in -- but not final control over -- intelligence spending decisions.

“Perhaps some correction could be made or addition by Congress to the existing powers,” Warner said. “Perhaps we could change the name, call it the national intelligence director.”

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, appears to have rejected that approach, and reiterated at Tuesday’s hearing that his panel would soon offer legislation to create a national intelligence director with powers envisioned by the Sept. 11 commission.

Despite differences on some issues, Rumsfeld and McLaughlin urged Congress to reject a recommendation by the Sept. 11 panel that would transfer control of covert paramilitary activities from the CIA to the Pentagon.

The CIA does “things that are authorized by statute and by findings that we’re not organized, trained or equipped to do and don’t want to do,” Rumsfeld said.