Roles of FBI, CIA in Security Debated

WASHINGTON —  Whether the FBI and CIA should be included in the proposed Department of Homeland Security emerged Tuesday as a potentially central issue in the congressional debate over President Bush’s plan for the massive new Cabinet-level department.

Several Democratic and Republican lawmakers expressed concern about the Bush administration’s exclusion of the FBI and CIA from its plans for the department, asserting that it could undermine the agencies’ ability to combat terrorist attacks on America.

“In this kind of war, information is even more your critical currency,” said House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas). “We may have to pull these agencies more formally into the structure.”

As Congress conducted its first hearing on Bush’s proposal, several lawmakers said they were eager to act quickly on what would be the most sweeping reorganization of the federal government in more than 50 years.

But they also pelted the plan’s proponents with questions. For example: What would happen to the non-defense duties of agencies that would be part of the new department, including the Coast Guard’s charge of stopping foreign vessels from poaching in U.S. waters and the Agriculture Department’s work to prevent crop-eating medflies from entering the country.

The questions underscore the turf battles expected to complicate congressional action on the reorganization plan. While House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) suggested finishing work on the bill by Sept. 11--the anniversary of the terrorist attacks on America--other leaders were skeptical about that timing. “That will be hard to achieve, but it’s a worthwhile goal,” said Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.). “This is a very large reorganization. Congress needs to make sure we do it in the right way.”

Some congressional experts have wondered whether lawmakers will be able to send Bush a bill before they adjourn for the year in October.

But former Sen. Warren B. Rudman (R-N.H.), an expert on national security issues, predicted in an interview Tuesday that the pressure of the November elections will prod lawmakers to act. “This is too important,” he said.

Last week, Bush unveiled his plan for the department, which some in Congress had already suggested. The department would include the Coast Guard, Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the newly created Transportation Security Administration, among other agencies. It would have almost 170,000 employees and a budget of more than $37 billion.

The new department would analyze intelligence from the FBI and the CIA, and would not gather information itself. “We need to find out how the new secretary of Homeland Security will obtain key information from other agencies like the FBI, like the CIA,” said Rep. James Gibbons (R-Nev.).

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) said he was worried that under Bush’s proposal, the new department would be a “passive customer of whatever the CIA or FBI sends them.”

Some in Congress have argued that the FBI should remain separate because it is a law enforcement agency with many responsibilities unrelated to homeland defense. Others said that prohibitions on domestic spying by the CIA also would make it difficult to make that agency part of a Department of Homeland Defense.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) told reporters: “My initial inclination is to be skeptical about taking actions where law enforcement would fall under homeland defense.”

Rep. William “Mac” Thornberry (R-Texas) suggested that Congress approve a bill creating the new department and deal later with the questions about its interaction with the FBI and CIA. “Everybody agrees we’ve got to make changes,” he said. “You cannot pass one bill that solves everything.... Delay in passing this bill helps the terrorists because it means we are unprepared that much longer.”

During Tuesday’s hearing before two House Government Reform subcommittees, an array of senior officials from agencies that would become part of the new department defended the Bush plan without exception.

“We’re all leaning forward in the saddle to make this work,” said Michael Becraft, acting deputy commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. “This is the smart thing to do, and we need to get on with it.”

However, the officials fielded pointed questions about whether non-terrorism programs would be given short shrift.

Adm. Thomas H. Collins, commandant of the Coast Guard, assured lawmakers that the service would still come to the rescue of boaters in distress. And Bobby R. Acord, head of the Agriculture Department’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, said his agency would continue to fight pests and diseases that threaten the food supply.

Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Fla.) remained unconvinced. “I wouldn’t want the Department of Homeland Security distracted by [the crop disease] citrus canker in Florida,” he said.

Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Walnut Creek) wondered aloud why the entire Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in her Northern California district would become part of the new agency, “even though only a small fraction of the work they do is relevant to homeland security.”

Still, she said, “we can’t get bogged down in these issues, because we need to galvanize the support of Congress in order to move forward.”

Times staff writer Janet Hook contributed to this report.