Congresspersonin' is hard work

Congressional plans to improve oversight of intelligence have hit another roadblock, with the Senate having second thoughts about its decision in October to create an Appropriations subcommittee on intelligence.
  WaPo article

Another committee. I'm sure that would have fixed the problem.

The subcommittee, approved as part of a Senate resolution containing other oversight changes, was designed to handle 80 percent of the $40 billion-plus budget of the 15 agencies that make up the intelligence community. Those agencies will come under the jurisdiction of the new national director of intelligence, a position the administration has not yet filled.

I'd almost forgotten about that. Can't wait to find out who that's gonna be.

There's a little problem with the committee proposal, however. It seems that the Senate originally wanted the entire intel budget ($40 billion, which includes 15 agencies) to be public, but the final bill that was signed made the actual intelligence spending budget secret. It seems, however, that subcommittees disclose their budget figures. So the Senate figured out that if the subcommittees disclose their budgets, all the public would have to do would be to subtract that number from the total and thereby figure out the amount of any secret budget.

That's as clear as mud to me. Maybe the Preznit could explain it. I know I'm missing something. Perhaps I just don't have the math skills, but it looks like you could figure that without the subcommittees. At least it seems you could figure out how much of the budget is unaccounted for and know that portion is being used for something they don't want anyone to know about.

And why does it matter if anyone knows how much is being spent on intel? Will that make the nation less secure? I would have thought that "the enemy" would have to know some specific things being done - not how much money was being spent. But, what do I know? Little or nothing about everything. (Thank you, Ranj.)

"Since it would be difficult to create an intelligence subcommittee with a classified budget, it may not be possible to do so at this time," Specter said in a statement released Tuesday. A spokesman for Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), chairman of the Appropriations panel, said yesterday no decision had been made.

"Oh, darn, I'm sorry," did not preface his statement

Improving how Congress monitors the performance of the intelligence community was a key recommendation of the Sept. 11 commission.

And as I named that the Worthless Commission from the get-go, it has proven to be.

Hamilton said he recognized that the commission's recommendation that one committee in each body be given both authorizing and appropriations oversight was not acceptable. "I know the Senate and House have wrestled with this, and I hope the process is not at an end," he said. "Robust congressional oversight is essential for effective counterterrorist policy . . . and that means control of the budget."

Yes, with the invasion of Iraq, and in fact, ever since 9/11, we've been seeing how robust congressional oversight is.

And here's a hysterical Keystone Cops article about the mess.

I can't seem to locate any other information about this budget secrecy problem. You'd better read the WaPo article yourself. Maybe it will make more sense to you. Let me know.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.