DoD News Briefing: Excerpt on Stalled Intelligence Reform Bill

[...]

SEC. RUMSFELD: Charlie?

Q Mr. Secretary, in an administration that prizes solidarity, have you and the senior civilian and military leadership in this building been working behind the scenes on the Hill to torpedo the Senate intelligence bill? And what are your objections to that bill, sir?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, Charlie, I think you probably know me well enough to know I wouldn't be doing that. The fact that the New York Times editorial says that I'm obviously lobbying against the President's stated policy is nonsense.

I was asked by the White House to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee well before the president established a complete position on intelligence reform. He had come out in favor of the NID and in favor of the NCTC. I went up and testified and supported the NID and the NCTC, and then gave my personal views, which I said were not administration views.

Somewhat later, a week or two or three, again, well before the President adopted a specific position on some of the details, I was asked to brief the intelligence -- in the intelligence room in the Senate on Iraq, and in the House. Dick Myers and I went and did that. Again, I was asked my views; I supported the President's position. At that point he had elaborated one more point, and that was that he wanted to make sure that we did not interfere with the chain of command, in addition to supporting the NID and the NCTC. That's been my position.

The New York Times is wrong. The congressmen who are saying that I had blatant opposition to the bill is incorrect because the bill didn't exist in the form that it currently is, and the President didn't have a position on the bill at the times that I was briefing him.

Needless to say, I'm a part of this administration. I support the President's position. And I haven't been close to it because I've been out of the country, but my impression is that the -- that it looks close; it looks like the House and Senate are having a typical conference where you have a lot of differences, and they've been sorting through those and kind of working their way along. And my impression is that without question, I favor reform in the intelligence community, as the President does. And I have a feeling that they're close.

Q Mr. Secretary, some members of the House Intelligence Committee say that the Senate version of the bill doesn't protect tactical intelligence from the warfighter because it concentrates too much on overall intelligence. Would you agree with that, sir?

SEC. RUMSFELD: No, I'm not knowledgeable enough to agree or disagree. I am supporting the President's position. I am a part of his administration.

The difficulty, I suppose, that comes up is the same piece of information can simultaneously be tactical battlefield information and at the same time be national intelligence. We all know that. These things don't fall into neat bins where they're one or the other. So this is tough stuff. This is hard work to do what they're doing up there, and my impression is that the legislative process is working its way.

Q General Myers, can you explain --

Q Mr. Secretary, following up on that --

Q General Myers, can you explain the circumstances of your letter to Congressman Hunter, which does appear to lend support to one version of the bill over the other.

GEN. MYERS: You bet. When senior officers go before the Senate Armed Services Committee to be confirmed, one of the things they ask you, would you be willing to provide your personal opinion if it differs from that of the administration on whatever matter. And, of course, you tell them yes, you will. And that was the situation --

SEC. RUMSFELD: If you want to be confirmed! (Laughs; laughter.)

GEN. MYERS: Only if you want to be confirmed!

And Chairman Hunter called and asked for my opinion on a certain matter that related to intel reform, and I was obliged to give him my opinion, and I did that.

Q Mr. Secretary, were you aware General Myers was sending a letter opposing -- raising serious concerns about the bill?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Not only was I, but the White House was. I mean, we had discussed this matter internally. They knew our positions, the White House. And it had been as things evolved, people were opining on this and talking about that. And they were fully aware of the chairman's position, just as I was. And we also were fully aware of the requirement that a uniformed military personnel when they're asked by the House or the Senate committee's their views would give them their honest views, and he did.

Q So just to be straight, you did support the legislation that was blocked this weekend?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I support the president's position. What they're in is a very complicated negotiation up there, and they're trying to resolve a series of final four, five, six items, as I understand it. As I say, I haven't been involved in it, I've been out of the country. But the President's position is evolving as the negotiation evolves. I'm a part of this administration. If I didn't want to support the President's position, I wouldn't be in the administration, and I do intend to support it.

Q And Charlie's question, did you lobby anybody behind the scenes on it?

SEC. RUMSFELD: And the answer is absolutely not, and it's just plain inaccurate to say, as The New York Times editorial does, that I have. (Inaudible.)

Q Do you agree with the chairman's letter?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I did exactly what I said I did. I testified at the request of the White House prior to the time the president had a position on all the details. I didn't want to. I said I thought it was not a good idea to testify until the President and the administration had a position. I went up there at their request and I did testify and I did tell the truth and said what I thought, and it's a matter of public record.

Q Do you agree with the chairman's letter?

Q General Myers?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Why don't we -- why don't we get it to the other side?

Q General Myers, to sort of attempt to cut to the bottom line here, subsequent --

SEC. RUMSFELD: You don't think we gave you the bottom line?

Q Not just yet. (Laughter.) Subsequent to the President stating his position on intelligence reform you wrote the letter, and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff last Thursday, when requested, told the House Armed Services Committee that they supported your position. So now can you tell us, yourself and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, do you still oppose -- and Mr. Secretary also -- do you gentlemen still oppose shifting budget authority and appropriations and responsibility for the NSA, the NRO and the Geospatial Agency from the Pentagon, the Department of Defense, over to a national intelligence director? Are you opposed to that? Is that your best military advice to the Congress?

SEC. RUMSFELD: The answer for me, I support the President's position, and it's one that's evolving as those complex details are being worked out as to what that set of relationships ought to be.

Q Sir, with all due respect, that is the language in the bill at the moment. Do you --

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, you can't say that because there are -- there's a debate over what will go in that bill and there are differing positions.

Q That's the language in the bill that was not supported over the weekend by -- did not come to a vote in Congress. So my question, very precisely, still stands for both of you. Mr. Chairman, did you and the Joint Chiefs still oppose shifting those programs to a national intelligence director?

GEN. MYERS: My position on the particular issue is as stated in my letter. And the Joint Chiefs can speak for themselves, and I guess they did in a hearing last week when I was gone.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Yes?

GEN. MYERS: Haven't changed.