[Mb-civic] The Gap in Intelligence Oversight - Nancy Pelosi - Washington Post Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

The Gap in Intelligence Oversight

By Nancy Pelosi
Sunday, January 15, 2006; B07

The uproar concerning President Bush's admission that he authorized the 
National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct certain electronic 
surveillance affecting people in the United States is a wake-up call for 
intensive congressional oversight of intelligence activities.

Review of intelligence-gathering and analysis is a critical 
responsibility of the legislative branch. But as the independent Sept. 
11 commission concluded, "so long as oversight is governed by current 
congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will 
not get the security they want and need." As one who served on the House 
intelligence committee for 10 years and who continues to serve in a 
non-voting capacity, I know that the commission's concerns are justified 
and require immediate action.

Congress is not an afterthought in assessing intelligence activities; 
federal law requires that it be kept informed of all such activities. 
But despite that clear statutory directive, the Bush administration 
consistently acts as though it alone owns intelligence information.

The products of our intelligence agencies belong to the government, of 
which Congress is an equal branch. The executive branch operates 
intelligence programs and activities, and Congress oversees and pays for 
them -- and thus has a responsibility to ensure that they are effective 
and carried out in a manner consistent with the Constitution, our laws 
and our values. That's why the intelligence committees were created. But 
as the Sept. 11 commission noted, the way intelligence information is 
conveyed to Congress and the way Congress operates make rigorous 
oversight impossible.

The executive branch provides notice of some especially sensitive 
intelligence information only to the chairman and the ranking member of 
the minority party of the House and Senate intelligence committees, and 
to the leaders of Congress. This is how I came to be informed of 
President Bush's authorization for the NSA to conduct certain types of 
electronic surveillance.

But when the administration notifies Congress in this manner, it is not 
seeking approval. There is a clear expectation that the information will 
be shared with no one, including other members of the intelligence 
committees. As a result, only a few members of Congress were aware of 
the president's surveillance program, and they were constrained from 
discussing it more widely. That limitation must change.

In the executive branch, decisions about who should have access to 
intelligence are made on a "need to know" basis. Congress must adopt a 
similar principle. The members of the intelligence committees are 
entrusted by their colleagues with the responsibility for making sure 
that intelligence practices are consistent with our laws and our values. 
Unless the entire committee has access to the same information, under 
tight confidentiality rules, Congress cannot respond legislatively to 
intelligence activity by the executive branch.

In the 17 months since the Sept. 11 commission called on Congress to 
review the adequacy of its intelligence oversight system, I have written 
to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.)four times to urge that we 
proceed in a bipartisan fashion to get that job done. In the letters, I 
have proposed that the House create a bipartisan, bicameral working 
group to recommend improvements to the oversight process. Its goal would 
be to find ways for Congress to more effectively carry out our statutory 
requirement to specifically authorize all intelligence activities; to 
make sure that all information provided to the chairs and ranking 
minority-party members of the intelligence committees is made available 
to every committee member, and to better ensure that information 
provided to Congress by intelligence agencies is complete and candid.

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) and other members with intelligence expertise 
have made similar requests. So far no action has been taken. Until we 
ensure that Congress can conduct thorough oversight, consistent with our 
constitutional responsibilities, we will not have honored our 
responsibility to protect the American people.

We all recognize that our efforts against terrorism or other threats 
require new, more flexible approaches. But in a democracy, those 
approaches cannot be fashioned unilaterally by an administration with a 
disturbingly expansive view of the powers of the president.

The writer is Democratic leader of the House of Representatives.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/13/AR2006011301698.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060115/17803eb1/attachment.htm