Kill (the) bill

(Washington, D.C.): The philosopher George Santayana once said that “fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim.” By that definition, it appears there is an outbreak of fanaticism in official Washington at the moment as proponents of the so-called “intelligence reform bill” insist that it be enacted this week – even though, in at least two important ways, that bill is no longer conducive to the aim of reducing America’s vulnerability to renewed terrorist attack.

Remember, It’s the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act

First, the bill was not supposed to be aimed just at reforming intelligence. Instead, it was intended to implement the various recommendations of the 9/11 Commission – including a number that did not deal with changes to the U.S. intelligence community.

In fact, arguably far more important in terms of actually reducing the chances of another terrorist attack on the American homeland are a set of Commission recommendations that some in the Congress have no interest in adopting. These pertain to border security, changes to policies and practices governing legal and illegal immigration and standards designed to make state-issued drivers licenses less susceptible to fraud and abuse.

What the 9/11 Families Really Want

Five members of 9/11 Families for a Secure America appeared at a Capitol Hill press conference last week to urge that the bill not be enacted in its present form. Their group represents some 300 of the families who lost loved ones on September 11th – far more than any other group and most especially the handful of self-appointed spokesmen who call themselves the “9/11 Family Steering Committee” who campaigned for John Kerry and now insist that the bill be enacted as is.

It turns out that vastly more of those whose lives were shattered by the terrorists on 9/11 recognize a political certitude: If the present legislation does not include measures to make our borders less porous, to improve the government’s ability to monitor aliens who are in this country legally and to remove those who are not and to prevent terrorists’ ability to engage in identity and document fraud, such provisions will likely never pass.

The truth of the matter is that, although polls indicate the vast majority of Americans want more robust policies towards illegal aliens, leading politicians of both parties choose to ignore the preferences of such constituents. Instead, they defer to those who advocate on the illegals’ behalf – notably, well-heeled immigration lawyers, prominent Latino organizations and various industries whose profits depend upon the exploitation of cheap labor.

Consequently, all other things being equal, if any bills dealing with immigration issues are actually taken up next year, they will likely be about “legalizing” aliens who have come here without permission. Whether it is called amnesty or not, that will be the perceived purpose. And the mere prospect of such legislation will have the effect of creating new incentives to gain access to and/or remain in this country illegally – exactly the opposite of what the 9/11 Commission had in mind, and sure to compound the illegal activities that made possible the last terrorist attacks.

The only chance to do something constructive about borders, immigration and drivers licenses and other document security is if these elements are embedded in must-pass 911 legislation. Were elected officials allowed to get away with claiming that their bill rewiring the Intelligence Community’s organizational chart is the only necessary response to the Commission’s recommendations, you can forget about getting action on the other, critically important front. House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner and those of his colleagues who are not interested simply in paying lip service to the idea of “making the American people safer” but actually doing so, understand this reality and must be supported in holding the line.

Do No Harm

The second argument for killing the present bill is that its changes to U.S. intelligence will likely make matters worse, not better. It will create more bureaucracy and more “stove-piping,” actions that are likely to produce more “groupthink” and less timely and actionable intelligence. These are precisely the things the reformers say they want to avoid and that we can ill-afford during a time of war.

In addition, the bill’s drafters explicitly set out to create new chains of command for the Defense Department’s intelligence agencies. No one – least of all House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter – should be under any illusion that presidential assurances, or minor changes in language will correct what is a fundamental flaw in this legislation, one that is likely to cause real harm to our men and women in uniform.

It is instructive that the bill’s proponents are currently trying to reduce these highly momentous disagreements over substance to nothing more than a political power play. They would have us believe that President Bush’s legacy or his prospects for future legislative accomplishments depend on his forcing this defective legislation through Congress in the next few days. Such gambits simply underscore the need for more time to consider and improve this legislation’s contents.

The Bottom Line

Legislators have no higher obligation than to make our country truly safer. If there is a significant danger that they will not actually be advancing that aim in a piece of legislation, it is incumbent on them to address the identified defects in a careful and deliberate manner — something that is not possible in the last hours of a lame duck session.

The American people want and expect their elected officials not simply to get this bill done, but to get it done right. True presidential leadership will be demonstrated by a recognition that the latter can only be accomplished next year.