United States Intelligence Community Oversight
Encyclopedia
United States Intelligence Community Oversight duties are shared by both the executive and legislative branches of the government. Oversight, in this case, is the supervision of intelligence agencies, and making them accountable for their actions. Generally oversight bodies look at the following general issues: following policymaker needs, the quality of analysis, operations, and legality of actions.
and Hughes-Ryan Act
). The President also has the power to appoint commissions, which can be used to assess intelligence topics (such as The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks
or The Iraq Intelligence Commission
).
Executive Branch
The White House sets the national security and foreign affairs agenda. Congress and the judicial branch have affirmed the executive branch’s lead role for conducting national security affairs numerous times. Furthermore, the White House can limit congressional influence in the domain of national security and intelligence.http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf
Access to Information
The White House has the power to control information classification, and even withhold access to information and operational details from certain members of Congress. In this way, the executive branch can directly control what Congress can or cannot see, indirectly influencing the legislative branch’s overall ability to make decisions. Thus, despite members of the Intelligence Committees and their staffs holding appropriate security clearances, they may sometimes only have a limited view into specific intelligence activities.http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf
Though the 1947 National Security Act states that Congress must be kept “fully informed” of significant intelligence activities, many Presidents have interpreted this clause to mean they only need to notify the “Gang of Eight” rather than the full membership of the congressional intelligence committees. The Gang of Eight consists of the Senate and House Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
Veto Power: The President also has the power to veto any legislation that Congress passes. For example, President Bush’s veto of the Intelligence Authorization Bill of 2009, which included language on coercive interrogation, indicates that this can be a very effective tool to control the ability of Congress to influence intelligence policy. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf
Direct Authority: Leaders of the IC are appointed by the President to their positions, and the White House has the authority to hire and fire them. While some of these positions – such as the CIA Director– require Senate confirmation, many do not. As a result, the President is able to appoint trusted advisors to key positions in the IC. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf
Legislative Branch
Although the Constitution gives the executive branch preeminence in dealing with intelligence matters, Article I nevertheless provides Congress with an important oversight role. However, Congressional oversight into intelligence issues is a complex task, requiring a sophisticated understanding of the issues. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf
The floor debate for the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 provided a clear example of the difficulties Congress faces when trying to modify intelligence legislation. Members, for reasons of classification or technical complexity, did not share a common understanding of the law, let alone how it should be adjusted.http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf
Authorization and Appropriation
Congress’s most important source of leverage is the power to authorize programs and appropriate funds. During the authorization and appropriations process, Congress can signal its intelligence and policy priorities through both the allocation of funds and the inclusion of non budget-related clauses in the authorization and appropriations bills.http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf
Nominations: Many of the IC’s top leaders, including the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA Director, are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. This sometimes grueling
process forces the White House to carefully select its nominees and provides an opportunity for Senate input on both the individuals and issues related to intelligence policy. In recent years, the Senate has withheld confirmation until the executive branch agreed to share additional information on key areas of congressional oversight of intelligence activities.http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf
Congressional Hearings
Congress invites—and, in some cases, compels—high-ranking members of the executive branch to appear before Congress to ask them targeted questions intended to create more transparent and effective IC operations. As noted previously, however, the power of this tool depends in large part on Congress’s awareness of IC activities.http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf
(PFIAB) is now known as President’s Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB). Under the PIAB is the Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB), which is used to carry out investigations and initiate analysis activities for the President. The PIAB members are appointed by the President and are usually individuals with relevant experience. In 2008, current President Bush by Executive Order removed some oversight powers from the IOB, critics argue that the changes have weakened oversight capabilities. Previously, if the IOB learned of allegedly illegal or contrary to executive order intelligence activity, it notified both the president and the attorney general, now however, the IOB must refer matters to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation. In addition, the IOB lost the authority to oversee each intelligence agency's general counsel and inspector general. The main issue with the PIAB is concerns, since they are appointed by the president, there may be politicization of their recommendations.
(OIG) and the General Counsel, have oversight responsibilities (see The Inspector General Act ). The OIG reports to the Secretary of the department or the director of their agency. The OIG “conducts independent investigations, audits, inspections, and special reviews…of personnel and programs to detect and deter waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct, and to promote integrity, economy, efficiency, and effectiveness.”
(NSC) Office of Intelligence Programs (OIP) provides routine oversight and intelligence policy for the intelligence community. The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) also oversees and directs the implementation of the National Intelligence Program for the intelligence community. The oversight body in the Office of the DNI is the Joint Intelligence Community Council (JICC) which is chaired by the DNI; other members include the secretaries of State
, Treasury
, Defense
, Energy
, Homeland Security
and the Attorney General
. The effectiveness of the JICC is questioned for two reasons, one, Cabinet members likely do not have the time to devote to intelligence issues, and two, the JICC officers are more powerful than the DNI in that they have separate opportunities to speak to the president, which gives them supplementary means to challenge DNI decisions.
The Department of Defense
(DoD) has its own oversight body, the DoD Intelligence Oversight Program (IOP). The main objective of IOP is “to ensure that the DoD can conduct its intelligence and counterintelligence missions while protecting the statutory and constitutional rights of U.S. persons.”
justifies its oversight abilities
using two main reasons; the first is the Necessary and Proper Clause of the US Constitution
(since courts found that the clause includes the power to require reports from the executive on anything that can be legislated) and the second is the Power of the Purse
. Congressional oversight
focuses on the supervising of the budget, quality of analysis, legality of actions, and intelligence failures. The two principal committees that are charged with intelligence community oversight are the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: Oversight Subcommittee
.
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI): 22 members sit on the Committee, although this number has fluctuated in the past. This includes at least one member each from the House Appropriations, Armed Services, Judiciary, and Foreign Affairs Committees. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI): 15 Senators sit on this committee, although this number also has fluctuated in the past. By rule, the majority party has eight members on the committee, regardless of the number of seats held by the majority in overall Senate. One seat from both the majority and minority party are reserved for standing committee members from
Appropriations, Armed Services, Foreign Relations, and Judiciary. The Chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committees serve as ex officio members of the intelligence committees.http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf
The main authorizers of the intelligence budget are House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
, other committees that authorize funds include The House Armed Services Committee
and Senate Armed Services Committee
.
The House Appropriations Select Intelligence Oversight Panel
(as of 2007) and the Senate Intelligence Appropriations Subcommittee
(as of 2004) are responsible for allocating funds to the intelligence community budget. This allows each of these committees to have some control over the intelligence community actions and have access to examine size, shape, organization and programs of the agencies. However, despite the Senate approving a resolution in 2004 to create a Senate Intelligence Appropriations Subcommittee, none exists. Recently, Senator Kit Bond
has introduced Senate Resolution 655 in 2008 calling for the committee to be constituted. To date, no action by congress has been taken on the Bond resolution.
Congress is allowed to investigate almost all issues, most Congressional investigations produce a report. An example of a Congressional investigation, is the Senate investigation on pre-war intelligence which produced the Report on Pre-War Intelligence on Iraq. Another example is the joint House and Senate Intelligence Committees inquiry after 9/11; the report produced presented the findings, conclusions, a discussion, and a series of recommendations. The effectiveness of Congressional investigations is often criticized because Congress through its budgetary powers and oversight responsibilities has influence over the community, and therefore the question becomes can Congress be objective about its own actions.
The Government Accountability Office
(GAO) also known as the investigative arm of Congress, helps Congress with oversight of federal programs and provides Congress with insight into ways to make government more efficient, effective, ethical and equitable (it also provides forecasts of long-term trends and challenges) by producing reports.
has the power to confirm (or reject) Presidential nominations for appointed posts, which plenty of important posts in the intelligence are, such as the DNI and the DCIA. In this way, the Senate has power to reject unfit persons and hope to guide the intelligence community to whatever way they feel best.
The Senate also has the power to ratify treaties; this is important to the intelligence community because one of its functions is monitoring treaty compliance, for example during Soviet arms control of the 1970s the ability to monitor the Soviets compliance was only within the intelligence community. The senate select committee was given the task of examining whether the intelligence community could accurately monitor treaty compliance. Sometimes they can hold decisions on treaties until provisions are met such as the buying of new satellites before ratifying the 1988 Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty
Hostages are one way that Congress can try to force the Executive branch into doing what Congress wants. Congress withholds making decisions or taking action on important things (such as approving nominations or ratifying treaties) to the executive branch in order to force the preferred action.
report stated that redundancy in congressional oversight, through the multiple responsible committees, hindered the oversight process and was not conducive to the goals of oversight. The commission recommended to reduce redundancy, and to unify the congressional oversight community, for example creating a standing joint House/Senate Intelligence committee.
At this point, congress has not fully implemented the commission’s suggestions. However, in October 2004, the Senate enacted a series of internal changes; it ended its eight-year term limits for members of its Intelligence Committee; elevated its Intelligence Committee to category "A" status (generally Senators can serve on no more than two "A" committees); created an Oversight Subcommittee of the Intelligence Committee; and established an Intelligence Subcommittee of its Appropriations Committee. In 2007, the House changed intelligence appropriations responsibilities and created the Appropriations Select Intelligence Oversight Panel.
Some Congressional members wish to consolidate oversight in keeping with the 9/11 recommendations such as Representative Carolyn Maloney, (D-NY) who in 2004, proposed that the House shift the House Intelligence Committee status to a standing committee and giving it exclusive jurisdiction over the intelligence community. Conversely, others wish to diversify oversight responsibility to more committees such as, Representatives Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Adam Schiff (D-CA) who in July 2006 introduced a bill that would require the House Intelligence Committee to disclose considerable classified information to at least eight other House committees.
Redundancy advocates argue that it reduces group think and favoritism; produces competition; and increases reliability by decreasing the chances of the system failing entirely. Consolidation advocates argue that consolidation would improve the accountability of both the intelligence community and Congress (for example, if multiple Committees failed to catch something it would be difficult to hold any one accountable) and it would reduce costs.
Another secrecy issue is the intelligence budget. The Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 7, requires accounts of all public money be published “from time to time.” Many Administrations have argued using the vagueness of the statement, that disclosing intelligence budget figures would harm National Security.
Executive Oversight
Oversight in the executive branch usually focuses on covert action and espionage. The President heads oversight in the executive branch, and all covert actions must be approved by him or her (Refer to Intelligence Authorization ActIntelligence Authorization Act
The Intelligence Authorization Act was implemented in order to codify covert, clandestine operations and defines requirements for reporting such operations to the Congress...
and Hughes-Ryan Act
Hughes-Ryan Act
The Hughes-Ryan Act is a 1974 United States federal law that amended the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. The Act was named for its co-authors, Senator Harold E. Hughes and Representative Leo Ryan...
). The President also has the power to appoint commissions, which can be used to assess intelligence topics (such as The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks
9/11 Commission
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission, was set up on November 27, 2002, "to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks", including preparedness for and the immediate response to...
or The Iraq Intelligence Commission
Iraq Intelligence Commission
The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction is a panel created by Executive Order 13328 signed by U.S. President George W. Bush in February 2004...
).
Executive and Legislative Give-and-Take
Congress’s oversight responsibilities over the IC often overlap with the responsibilities and authorities of the executive branch. Given the natural competition that exists between the legislative and executive branches, this overlap creates tensions as both sides struggle to accomplish certain goals using their respective powers and authorities. Hence intelligence oversight can be one of the most challenging separation-of-powers issues in government. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdfExecutive Branch
The White House sets the national security and foreign affairs agenda. Congress and the judicial branch have affirmed the executive branch’s lead role for conducting national security affairs numerous times. Furthermore, the White House can limit congressional influence in the domain of national security and intelligence.http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf
Access to Information
The White House has the power to control information classification, and even withhold access to information and operational details from certain members of Congress. In this way, the executive branch can directly control what Congress can or cannot see, indirectly influencing the legislative branch’s overall ability to make decisions. Thus, despite members of the Intelligence Committees and their staffs holding appropriate security clearances, they may sometimes only have a limited view into specific intelligence activities.http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf
Though the 1947 National Security Act states that Congress must be kept “fully informed” of significant intelligence activities, many Presidents have interpreted this clause to mean they only need to notify the “Gang of Eight” rather than the full membership of the congressional intelligence committees. The Gang of Eight consists of the Senate and House Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
Veto Power: The President also has the power to veto any legislation that Congress passes. For example, President Bush’s veto of the Intelligence Authorization Bill of 2009, which included language on coercive interrogation, indicates that this can be a very effective tool to control the ability of Congress to influence intelligence policy. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf
Direct Authority: Leaders of the IC are appointed by the President to their positions, and the White House has the authority to hire and fire them. While some of these positions – such as the CIA Director– require Senate confirmation, many do not. As a result, the President is able to appoint trusted advisors to key positions in the IC. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf
Legislative Branch
Although the Constitution gives the executive branch preeminence in dealing with intelligence matters, Article I nevertheless provides Congress with an important oversight role. However, Congressional oversight into intelligence issues is a complex task, requiring a sophisticated understanding of the issues. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf
The floor debate for the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 provided a clear example of the difficulties Congress faces when trying to modify intelligence legislation. Members, for reasons of classification or technical complexity, did not share a common understanding of the law, let alone how it should be adjusted.http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf
Authorization and Appropriation
Congress’s most important source of leverage is the power to authorize programs and appropriate funds. During the authorization and appropriations process, Congress can signal its intelligence and policy priorities through both the allocation of funds and the inclusion of non budget-related clauses in the authorization and appropriations bills.http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf
Nominations: Many of the IC’s top leaders, including the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA Director, are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. This sometimes grueling
process forces the White House to carefully select its nominees and provides an opportunity for Senate input on both the individuals and issues related to intelligence policy. In recent years, the Senate has withheld confirmation until the executive branch agreed to share additional information on key areas of congressional oversight of intelligence activities.http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf
Congressional Hearings
Congress invites—and, in some cases, compels—high-ranking members of the executive branch to appear before Congress to ask them targeted questions intended to create more transparent and effective IC operations. As noted previously, however, the power of this tool depends in large part on Congress’s awareness of IC activities.http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf
President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
The President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory BoardPresident's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
The President's Intelligence Advisory Board is an advisor to the Executive Office of the President of the United States. According to its self-description, it "...provides advice to the President concerning the quality and adequacy of intelligence collection, of analysis and estimates, of...
(PFIAB) is now known as President’s Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB). Under the PIAB is the Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB), which is used to carry out investigations and initiate analysis activities for the President. The PIAB members are appointed by the President and are usually individuals with relevant experience. In 2008, current President Bush by Executive Order removed some oversight powers from the IOB, critics argue that the changes have weakened oversight capabilities. Previously, if the IOB learned of allegedly illegal or contrary to executive order intelligence activity, it notified both the president and the attorney general, now however, the IOB must refer matters to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation. In addition, the IOB lost the authority to oversee each intelligence agency's general counsel and inspector general. The main issue with the PIAB is concerns, since they are appointed by the president, there may be politicization of their recommendations.
Office Of Inspector General
Under each cabinet position and intelligence agency, the Office of the Inspector GeneralOffice of the Inspector General
Office of the Inspector General is an office that is part of Cabinet departments and independent agencies of the United States federal government as well as some state and local governments. Each office includes an Inspector General and employees charged with identifying, auditing, and...
(OIG) and the General Counsel, have oversight responsibilities (see The Inspector General Act ). The OIG reports to the Secretary of the department or the director of their agency. The OIG “conducts independent investigations, audits, inspections, and special reviews…of personnel and programs to detect and deter waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct, and to promote integrity, economy, efficiency, and effectiveness.”
The National Security Council
The National Security Council'sUnited States National Security Council
The White House National Security Council in the United States is the principal forum used by the President of the United States for considering national security and foreign policy matters with his senior national security advisors and Cabinet officials and is part of the Executive Office of the...
(NSC) Office of Intelligence Programs (OIP) provides routine oversight and intelligence policy for the intelligence community. The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) also oversees and directs the implementation of the National Intelligence Program for the intelligence community. The oversight body in the Office of the DNI is the Joint Intelligence Community Council (JICC) which is chaired by the DNI; other members include the secretaries of State
United States Secretary of State
The United States Secretary of State is the head of the United States Department of State, concerned with foreign affairs. The Secretary is a member of the Cabinet and the highest-ranking cabinet secretary both in line of succession and order of precedence...
, Treasury
United States Secretary of the Treasury
The Secretary of the Treasury of the United States is the head of the United States Department of the Treasury, which is concerned with financial and monetary matters, and, until 2003, also with some issues of national security and defense. This position in the Federal Government of the United...
, Defense
United States Secretary of Defense
The Secretary of Defense is the head and chief executive officer of the Department of Defense of the United States of America. This position corresponds to what is generally known as a Defense Minister in other countries...
, Energy
United States Secretary of Energy
The United States Secretary of Energy is the head of the United States Department of Energy, a member of the President's Cabinet, and fifteenth in the presidential line of succession. The position was formed on October 1, 1977 with the creation of the Department of Energy when President Jimmy...
, Homeland Security
United States Secretary of Homeland Security
The United States Secretary of Homeland Security is the head of the United States Department of Homeland Security, the body concerned with protecting the American homeland and the safety of American citizens. The Secretary is a member of the President's Cabinet. The position was created by the...
and the Attorney General
United States Attorney General
The United States Attorney General is the head of the United States Department of Justice concerned with legal affairs and is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States government. The attorney general is considered to be the chief lawyer of the U.S. government...
. The effectiveness of the JICC is questioned for two reasons, one, Cabinet members likely do not have the time to devote to intelligence issues, and two, the JICC officers are more powerful than the DNI in that they have separate opportunities to speak to the president, which gives them supplementary means to challenge DNI decisions.
Other Executive Oversight Bodies
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) also oversees agencies, the OMB “reviews intelligence budgets in light of presidential policies and priorities, clears proposed testimony, and approves draft intelligence legislation for submission to Congress.”The Department of Defense
United States Department of Defense
The United States Department of Defense is the U.S...
(DoD) has its own oversight body, the DoD Intelligence Oversight Program (IOP). The main objective of IOP is “to ensure that the DoD can conduct its intelligence and counterintelligence missions while protecting the statutory and constitutional rights of U.S. persons.”
Legislative Oversight
CongressUnited States Congress
The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Congress meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C....
justifies its oversight abilities
Congressional oversight
Congressional oversight refers to oversight by the United States Congress of the Executive Branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. Congressional oversight refers to the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. Congress...
using two main reasons; the first is the Necessary and Proper Clause of the US Constitution
United States Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...
(since courts found that the clause includes the power to require reports from the executive on anything that can be legislated) and the second is the Power of the Purse
Taxing and Spending Clause
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, is known as the Taxing and Spending Clause. It is the clause that gives the federal government of the United States its power of taxation...
. Congressional oversight
Congressional oversight
Congressional oversight refers to oversight by the United States Congress of the Executive Branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. Congressional oversight refers to the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. Congress...
focuses on the supervising of the budget, quality of analysis, legality of actions, and intelligence failures. The two principal committees that are charged with intelligence community oversight are the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
The United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is a committee of the United States House of Representatives, currently chaired by Mike Rogers. It is the primary committee in the U.S...
and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: Oversight Subcommittee
United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
The United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is dedicated to overseeing the United States Intelligence Community—the agencies and bureaus of the federal government of the United States who provide information and analysis for leaders of the executive and legislative branches. The...
.
Congressional Oversight History
These congressional organizations emerged in the late 1970s, when the Church and Pike Committees investigated the CIA and other intelligence agencies in response to the Watergate scandal. Both committees found evidence of spying on American citizens, illegal wiretapping, and cover-ups. As a result, Senate Resolution 400 in 1976 and House Resolution 658 in 1977 established the intelligence.http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdfIntelligence Committee Membership
The intelligence committees are just one of members’ committee assignments. Unlike other committees, positions on the intelligence committees are select assignments made by the leadership on each side in the House and Senate. The 9/11 Commission recommended changes to the intelligence committee structure in the Senate, whereby four of the members would be ‘dual-hatted’ on the Appropriations, Armed Services, Foreign Relations, and Judiciary committees. Commissioners thought this was important to ensure that the SSCI members included lawmakers familiar with the issues and interests that each of those four committees covers.http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdfHouse Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI): 22 members sit on the Committee, although this number has fluctuated in the past. This includes at least one member each from the House Appropriations, Armed Services, Judiciary, and Foreign Affairs Committees. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI): 15 Senators sit on this committee, although this number also has fluctuated in the past. By rule, the majority party has eight members on the committee, regardless of the number of seats held by the majority in overall Senate. One seat from both the majority and minority party are reserved for standing committee members from
Appropriations, Armed Services, Foreign Relations, and Judiciary. The Chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committees serve as ex officio members of the intelligence committees.http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf
Budget process
The two main components of the budget process are that of appropriation (allocation of funds) and authorization (approving the use of funds for programs or activities).The main authorizers of the intelligence budget are House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
The United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is a committee of the United States House of Representatives, currently chaired by Mike Rogers. It is the primary committee in the U.S...
and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
The United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is dedicated to overseeing the United States Intelligence Community—the agencies and bureaus of the federal government of the United States who provide information and analysis for leaders of the executive and legislative branches. The...
, other committees that authorize funds include The House Armed Services Committee
United States House Committee on Armed Services
thumb|United States House Committee on Armed Services emblemThe U.S. House Committee on Armed Services, commonly known as the House Armed Services Committee, is a standing committee of the United States House of Representatives...
and Senate Armed Services Committee
United States Senate Committee on Armed Services
The Committee on Armed Services is a committee of the United States Senate empowered with legislative oversight of the nation's military, including the Department of Defense, military research and development, nuclear energy , benefits for members of the military, the Selective Service System and...
.
The House Appropriations Select Intelligence Oversight Panel
United States House Appropriations Select Intelligence Oversight Panel
The United States House Appropriations Select Intelligence Oversight Panel was a select subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations. Established on January 9, 2007 pursuant to , as part of efforts to implement the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the...
(as of 2007) and the Senate Intelligence Appropriations Subcommittee
United States Senate Committee on Appropriations
The United States Senate Committee on Appropriations is a standing committee of the United States Senate. It has jurisdiction over all discretionary spending legislation in the Senate....
(as of 2004) are responsible for allocating funds to the intelligence community budget. This allows each of these committees to have some control over the intelligence community actions and have access to examine size, shape, organization and programs of the agencies. However, despite the Senate approving a resolution in 2004 to create a Senate Intelligence Appropriations Subcommittee, none exists. Recently, Senator Kit Bond
Kit Bond
Christopher Samuel "Kit" Bond is a former United States Senator from Missouri and a member of the Republican Party. First elected to the U.S. Senate in 1986, he defeated Democrat Harriett Woods by a margin of 53%-47%. He was re-elected in 1992, 1998, and 2004...
has introduced Senate Resolution 655 in 2008 calling for the committee to be constituted. To date, no action by congress has been taken on the Bond resolution.
Other Legislative Oversight Methods
Congress has several other methods at its disposal for overseeing and controlling aspects of the intelligence community.Hearings, Investigations, And Reports
Hearings are a means to request information from officials and experts. Hearings are usually adversarial in nature and try to ensure that the agencies comply with laws, and that administrative policies reflect the public interest. Oversight hearings inquire about the efficiency, financial system, and effectiveness of agency operations. Hearings may be closed to the public depending on the nature of the hearing. Following a hearing, questions for the record (QFRs or “kew-fers”) may be submitted to witnesses and agencies.Congress is allowed to investigate almost all issues, most Congressional investigations produce a report. An example of a Congressional investigation, is the Senate investigation on pre-war intelligence which produced the Report on Pre-War Intelligence on Iraq. Another example is the joint House and Senate Intelligence Committees inquiry after 9/11; the report produced presented the findings, conclusions, a discussion, and a series of recommendations. The effectiveness of Congressional investigations is often criticized because Congress through its budgetary powers and oversight responsibilities has influence over the community, and therefore the question becomes can Congress be objective about its own actions.
The Government Accountability Office
Government Accountability Office
The Government Accountability Office is the audit, evaluation, and investigative arm of the United States Congress. It is located in the legislative branch of the United States government.-History:...
(GAO) also known as the investigative arm of Congress, helps Congress with oversight of federal programs and provides Congress with insight into ways to make government more efficient, effective, ethical and equitable (it also provides forecasts of long-term trends and challenges) by producing reports.
Treaties, Nominations, And Hostages
The SenateUnited States Senate
The United States Senate is the upper house of the bicameral legislature of the United States, and together with the United States House of Representatives comprises the United States Congress. The composition and powers of the Senate are established in Article One of the U.S. Constitution. Each...
has the power to confirm (or reject) Presidential nominations for appointed posts, which plenty of important posts in the intelligence are, such as the DNI and the DCIA. In this way, the Senate has power to reject unfit persons and hope to guide the intelligence community to whatever way they feel best.
The Senate also has the power to ratify treaties; this is important to the intelligence community because one of its functions is monitoring treaty compliance, for example during Soviet arms control of the 1970s the ability to monitor the Soviets compliance was only within the intelligence community. The senate select committee was given the task of examining whether the intelligence community could accurately monitor treaty compliance. Sometimes they can hold decisions on treaties until provisions are met such as the buying of new satellites before ratifying the 1988 Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty
Hostages are one way that Congress can try to force the Executive branch into doing what Congress wants. Congress withholds making decisions or taking action on important things (such as approving nominations or ratifying treaties) to the executive branch in order to force the preferred action.
Redundancy
At the time the 9/11 report was issued, 17 congressional committees had some intelligence oversight duty, on at least one Intelligence community member. (including but not limited to the Senate: Appropriations, Armed Services, Budget, Energy and Natural Resources, Foreign Relations, Governmental Affairs, Judiciary Standing Committees, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; House: House Appropriations, Armed Services, Budget, Energy and Commerce, International Relations, and Judiciary Standing Committees and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence). The 9/11 Commission9/11 Commission
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission, was set up on November 27, 2002, "to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks", including preparedness for and the immediate response to...
report stated that redundancy in congressional oversight, through the multiple responsible committees, hindered the oversight process and was not conducive to the goals of oversight. The commission recommended to reduce redundancy, and to unify the congressional oversight community, for example creating a standing joint House/Senate Intelligence committee.
At this point, congress has not fully implemented the commission’s suggestions. However, in October 2004, the Senate enacted a series of internal changes; it ended its eight-year term limits for members of its Intelligence Committee; elevated its Intelligence Committee to category "A" status (generally Senators can serve on no more than two "A" committees); created an Oversight Subcommittee of the Intelligence Committee; and established an Intelligence Subcommittee of its Appropriations Committee. In 2007, the House changed intelligence appropriations responsibilities and created the Appropriations Select Intelligence Oversight Panel.
Some Congressional members wish to consolidate oversight in keeping with the 9/11 recommendations such as Representative Carolyn Maloney, (D-NY) who in 2004, proposed that the House shift the House Intelligence Committee status to a standing committee and giving it exclusive jurisdiction over the intelligence community. Conversely, others wish to diversify oversight responsibility to more committees such as, Representatives Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Adam Schiff (D-CA) who in July 2006 introduced a bill that would require the House Intelligence Committee to disclose considerable classified information to at least eight other House committees.
Redundancy advocates argue that it reduces group think and favoritism; produces competition; and increases reliability by decreasing the chances of the system failing entirely. Consolidation advocates argue that consolidation would improve the accountability of both the intelligence community and Congress (for example, if multiple Committees failed to catch something it would be difficult to hold any one accountable) and it would reduce costs.
Secrecy
Members of Congress have TOP SECRET security clearances because they were elected to office, they do not have to submit to the background check procedures (Congressional Staff on the other hand must submit to background checks to handle classified materials). The House and the Senate limit dissemination of intelligence to members who are on the Intelligence committees and many of their hearings are closed. Usually, the main concern is leaks of classified information. However, some argue that openness is a tenet of democracy and therefore operations and information must be openly available to the public. There are also concerns about whether Congress would be willing to make public alarming information.Another secrecy issue is the intelligence budget. The Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 7, requires accounts of all public money be published “from time to time.” Many Administrations have argued using the vagueness of the statement, that disclosing intelligence budget figures would harm National Security.