Battle lines drawn on intelligence bill
House, Senate divided over 'torture' provision
WASHINGTON -- Members of the House and Senate yesterday pledged to iron out a final blueprint for reforming America's intelligence gathering apparatus before Election Day, but key differences between Republicans and Democrats threatened to bog down the talks on their first day.
Negotiators met to reconcile the House and Senate reform packages -- passed earlier this month -- and agreed in an initially cordial meeting to work to get a final bill passed and signed by President Bush before the Nov. 2 presidential election.
But the rare public conference soon turned confrontational, as Democrats accused the Republican majority of attempting to short-circuit debate over controversial provisions -- such as one that would allow suspected terrorists to be transferred to countries other than their homeland for interrogation -- and trying to rush through a final proposal without adequate bipartisan scrutiny.
"I object to this process," said Representative Jane Harman, Democrat of California and the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. "This will derail what we are trying to do."
The cooperative atmosphere began to evaporate when the panel head, Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, announced that Republican House negotiators had prepared a compromise proposal that Democrats said they had not been consulted on. Harman then accused the Republicans of pursuing a "take it or leave it" process.
Hoekstra acknowledged that there are "real differences" and agreed to sit down yesterday afternoon with Harman and Senators Joseph Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, and Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, to discuss the GOP proposal and report back to the conferees, who are planning to work through the weekend to complete a blueprint.
But before Hoekstra backed down, Democrats -- who have repeatedly accused the GOP leadership of shutting them out of debate, particularly in the House -- took turns chastising their Republican colleagues.
Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said he was "profoundly struck" by the House GOP's propensity to limit bipartisan input -- a tactic, he said, "we couldn't contemplate on the Senate side."
The Senate's intelligence reform bill was passed with an overwhelming majority, while the House version contains a series of controversial provisions, added by GOP leaders, that go beyond the 9/11 Commission recommendations.
The original recommendations centered on establishing a powerful national intelligence director and a new counterterrorism center to coordinate intelligence gathering from multiple spy agencies. But one provision quietly added to the House bill would expand the ability of the United States to transfer terrorism suspects to countries other than the suspects' homeland for interrogation, where they could be exposed to treatment that is illegal in the United States, such as torture.
The White House describes this flexibility as an "enhanced tool" to wage the war on terrorism. But others think it violates the United Nations Convention Against Torture.
"The torture provisions in the House bill make a mockery of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations," said Representative Edward J. Markey, a Democrat from Malden and a member of the Homeland Security Committee. He added that the measure is "inconsistent with international treaties, and it is contrary to our nation's values." Markey was among 60 lawmakers who wrote to the negotiators yesterday urging them to drop the provision when drafting a final bill.
The House version also would allow the Department of Homeland Security to detain aliens indefinitely at the department's "unreviewable discretion."
Other points of contention surround the structure of the national intelligence directorate that was recommended by the 9/11 Commission.
"The voluminous and bureaucratic requirements create confused chains of command, diminish accountability, and foster a risk-averse culture," the White House told the joint House-Senate panel in a lengthy letter on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California, expressed concern yesterday that the structure could undercut intelligence support for the military, and urged that top military commanders be consulted before finalizing any proposal.
The disagreements that erupted yesterday threaten to delay swift action that members of Congress and families of the victims of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, say is critical. They are concerned that if the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission are not adopted before the election, the political will to enact historical changes will be lost.
Nearly a dozen lawmakers from both parties urged the negotiators yesterday to hold "rapid discussions that will generate a resolution before Nov. 2."
"We have a golden opportunity to improve our nation's security, and we must not let it slip by," they wrote. "The process in Washington is stalled, but terrorists plot. Our government warns of an imminent terror threat. Shouldn't we move heaven and earth to upgrade our national security as soon as possible?"
Lieberman added in yesterday's meeting: "Unless we have some movement, we're not going to meet on the midpoint of the bridge and do something good for the country."
Bryan Bender can be reached at bender@globe.com. 