Congressman Jim Moran

At the time this column is being written, the House of Representatives is poised to enact the most sweeping reform of the way in which our country conducts its intelligence gathering operations. After spending close to a year studying the security lapses that led to the most devastating attacks against Americans on U.S. soil, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission released its recommendations in July that called for a variety of reforms to better strengthen our national security.

Proposals ranged from establishing a National Counterterrorism Center to a restructuring of the FBI. The report recognized that unlike our past adversaries, the greatest threat to America’s security comes not from a single, powerful nation-state but from rogue terrorist organizations that know no geographic bounds. Al-Qaida, under the direction of Osama bin Laden, perpetrated the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon not as representatives of a single nationalistic interest, but as fanatical ideologues bent on destroying our democratic way of life.

The 9/11 Commission’s report reflected this new reality and many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, including the President, were ready to pass bipartisan legislation to make our country safer. Unfortunately, an intraparty battle broke out within the Republican ranks over immigration provisions unrelated to intelligence reform. There were also concerns raised by the chairman of the House Armed Services

Committee that the “chain of command” would be altered in such a way as to hamper the military’s ability to communicate satellite gathered intelligence to commanders in the field while carrying out their operations and thus, put the lives of soldiers unnecessarily in harm’s way. While the “chain of command” argument proved to be inflated and was taken care of with directive language giving the military clear authority to use military intelligence equipment as needed, it took the full weight of the White House to get conservatives in line. Acting in a manner typical of the House Majority Party, Speaker Hastert had refused to bring the intelligence bill up for a vote unless he had a majority of Republicans to support it. The bill would have easily passed given Democrats unified support for the bipartisan measure.

I thank the 9/11 Commission for their work on this issue. I believe the reforms recommended will save American lives. I do, however, have some concerns about the new Director of National Intelligence post. I am concerned a White House that cherry-picked intelligence data to build a case for the ill-advised war in Iraq may exert political influence over the new National Intelligence Director. He may be politically inclined to use our intelligence resources to “support White House policy” (as new CIA Director Porter Goss directed CIA employees in a recent internal memo) after decisions have already been made rather than providing objective independent facts and analysis that should be considered before decisions of war and foreign policy are made. I will vote for the bill however, because the new intelligence reforms have a lot of merit and if carried out in the way the 9/11 Commission intended, will make us safer both at home and abroad.