For a while it looked as if all the investigations, all the headlines, all the public agonizing over U.S. intelligence abuses would come to nothing. The vexing question was whether the 15-month inquiry conducted by Frank Church’s Senate Select Committee would lead to the creation of a truly effective congressional committee with oversight powers on the intelligence agencies. But for the efforts of a few Senators who dug in their heels—Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, Government Operations Committee Chairman Abraham Ribicoff and California’s Alan Cranston among them —the answer might well have been an emphatic no. Yet last week, acting out of a palpable frustration caused by the long trail of illegalities starting with Watergate, the Senate finally redeemed itself. By 72 to 22, it voted to establish a permanent committee to oversee the budgets and operations of all U.S. intelligence bureaus. The 15-member committee is expected to be in business by early June.
When the proposal to set up this powerful watchdog unit emerged in March from Ribicoffs committee, it was a bright red flag to some of the Senate’s old bulls—especially those whose committees had long held jurisdiction but seldom exercised it over the intelligence community. A few, like Barry Goldwater, charged that the new committee would lead to more harmful intelligence disclosures. Snapped Goldwater: “I don’t care if you have a committee of one. It’s almost impossible to stop leaks.” John Stennis, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, attacked the committee’s right to oversee military intelligence; that was the preserve of his panel. The Senate Judiciary Committee fought equally hard against relinquishing its control over the FBI. Finally the conservative Rules Committee, in a series of 5-to-4 votes, stripped the new watchdog group of whatever authority remained.
Then Mansfield stepped in and, in one of his last major accomplishments before retiring at the end of this session, persuaded the chief antagonists to compromise. He suggested clipping some authority from the proposed new committee: it would share FBI oversight with the Judiciary Committee and defense intelligence oversight with the Armed Services Committee. But the new committee would be the exclusive overseer for the Central Intelligence Agency, and it alone would be empowered to authorize funds for the CIA. It would also be advised in advance of the plans for all U.S. intelligence agencies. No penalties for leaks, however, were outlined in the approved legislation.
Fumble or Fortify? Mansfield’s settlement quickly generated Senate support. The new committee will be composed of eight Democrats and seven Republicans. Members would be limited to eight-year terms to prevent the growth of cozy relationships between the watchers and the watched. Among those legislators picked at week’s end were Democratic liberals Birch Bayh, Adlai Stevenson, Gary Hart and Joseph Biden, and Republicans Clifford Case, Howard Baker, Mark Hatfield, Strom Thurmond and Goldwater. Though Church might be a natural candidate for chairmanship of the new committee, he ruled himself out. The expected choice is Democrat Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, a tough skeptic, who served on Sam Ervin’s Watergate Committee. After Inouye, another possibility for the chairmanship is Democrat Walter Huddleston of Kentucky.
The Senate’s resolution generally ensured a forceful watchdog committee. Still, the central question remains: would this intelligence panel fumble the oversight responsibility or fortify it?