WEEKLY SENATE UPDATE

An FBI agent pleaded with his superiors – to no avail – to find a future September 11^th hijacker already in the United States – while the CIA had been monitoring the same person, Khalid Almihdhar, at an al Qaeda meeting more than eighteen months prior, all the while the CIA knew he held a valid visa allowing him entry to the U.S.

Yet, the agency failed to add Almihdhar to immigration watch lists or inform the FBI until August 2001 – even with the additional knowledge since January 2001 that he had been in contact with the mastermind of the attack on the USS COLE. Moreover, the CIA initially had no idea that another body with responsibility for intelligence – the National Security Agency – had already linked Almihdhar’s frequent companion and fellow hijacker, Nawaf Alhazmi, with al Qaeda. This is not a picture of coordination of the nation’s Intelligence Community.

Now, with the release of the Joint Congressional Inquiry Report on 9/11, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on prewar intelligence on Iraq and the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission’s investigation report, our nation is presented with a historic opportunity to reform our all-too ad hoc intelligence operations. As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Congress is poised to begin the much-needed reform of our Intelligence Community which currently stands as an outdated structure, rather than one adapted for 21^st century threats. We must start with the establishment of a new Director of National Intelligence (DNI), as outlined in legislation introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that I cosponsored.

Rooted in the 57 year-old National Security Act of 1947, each agency within the Intelligence Community has their own mission, chain of command, procedures and institutional paradigm. A single DNI, however, would have the statutory authority to coordinate all intelligence resources and advise the President. Moreover, the DNI would have greater oversight authority in developing the budget of the entire intelligence infrastructure – all the more critical considering approximately 85 percent of the intelligence budget is outside the purview of the current Director of Central Intelligence, who currently is responsible for the over-arching intelligence community.

Saddled with an inadequate bureaucratic structure and a lack of authoritative oversight, it is not surprising that our intelligence agencies now lack the agility to identify and respond to an ever-changing threat. A new Director of National Intelligence would seek to correct this current fragmented system, being responsible for leading all 15 agencies and related offices, and reporting directly to the President. Working within an independent office, equipped with substantial budget and personnel authority, and aided by an appointed Deputy, this Director would provide the focused leadership required.

It is critical to understand that the CIA would retain its role as the central analytic element of the Community and the lead agency for foreign human intelligence collection, with its own dedicated full-time Director. The DNI would not hinder the critical role of the CIA, but rather enhance the responsiveness of its Director to the agency’s specific mission.

Some argue that the recommended changes would damage the ability of those elements of the Intelligence Community with a combat-support mission (such as the Defense Intelligence Agency). Some argue that a DNI would be "powerless" if removed from his "troops" at the CIA. Both arguments miss the point.

A DNI will derive his power from his statutory authority, budget and personnel authorities, and, to no small degree, his relationship as the intelligence advisor to the President without threatening the ability of other Cabinet Members, namely the Secretary of Defense, from levying requirements on the Community. The DNI legislation I support creates a truly independent authority for the Community.

The bottom line is that leading the entire U.S. Intelligence Community is a full-time position that can no longer be expected to be run by an individual who is also responsible to run a separate agency simultaneously.

We must remember that many of our nation's greatest future victories will be measured by the attacks that never happen in battles we win before they ever occur. That is the standard that our intelligence agencies must live by - and will live by if meaningful reforms such as the ones we are proposing are adopted.