Hastert's shameful ploy

ONE-PARTY control of the federal government is apparently an oxymoron.

When a bill is supported by President Bush, a large majority of the Senate, and House Speaker Dennis Hastert -- Republicans all -- yet Hastert refuses to bring it to a vote, that is embarrassing. When the bill contains key recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission that are crucial to national security, the failure is a threat to everyone.

Bush, Hastert, and Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, are now talking about a second lame-duck session of Congress early in December to reconsider the commission's proposal to overhaul the US intelligence community, consolidating most budget authority in a new, cabinet-level intelligence chief.

They should schedule that session, and they should provide the leadership needed to enact the reform. If they can.

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney personally lobbied two recalcitrant House committee chairmen -- Duncan Hunter of California and James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin -- but to little effect: The continued opposition of these two caused Hastert to abort an expected vote on Saturday.

For Bush the leadership question goes beyond his ability at personal persuasion. Reports indicated that some Pentagon officials oppose the reform, which would strip the Defense Department of control over some $30 billion in annual intelligence spending. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says he supports the reform, but Bush should make sure the administration is speaking with one voice -- and lobbying hard -- on this issue. If it fails again in December, Bush's motives, as well as his leadership, will be in question.

As for Hastert, he could have intervened in several ways. Hunter has consistently opposed the intelligence consolidation, arguing that it could undermine soldiers in the field. However, the compromise bill would have left tactical military intelligence in the control of the Pentagon. And some critics say Hunter was just protecting his turf as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Knowing this, Hastert could have named someone else to the bill's conference committee.

Sensenbrenner, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was pushing immigration strictures -- a side issue. Hastert could have offered him a separate vote and demanded procedural loyalty.

Most frustrating to reform supporters was the feeling that the House would have passed the bill, even over the chairmen's objections, if Hastert had allowed a vote. His spokesman said Hastert didn't want a bill unless most Republicans backed it. This shameful attitude comes from someone who apparently sees his role in the Republican caucus as more important, on an issue of national security, than his position as leader of the United States House of Representatives.