IC21: 21世纪的情报界

员工学习
常设情报特别委员会
众议院
第一百四次国会

十五。国会监督

内容提要发现目前的情报监督系统从一种观点认为，情报部门在相对于政府的其他功能时，这是一个非同寻常的方式来处理出现。虽然这种看法可能已经在调查之后在1975-76必要的，它不保证任何更长的时间。事实上，通过继续以这种方式，监督和情报机构的工作，查看情报有可能变得更加困难。倡导监督机构是合法的，并在一定程度上必要的。这不是因为情报委员会的接受态度。我们同意前者的DCIS认为，智力是这样一种有限制的问题，国会必须建立必要的政治共识更加活跃。目前的监督体系已基本有效，并明确作出了回应，促使目前的委员会的创建这些问题。没有令人信服的理由，目前的系统转换为一个联合委员会。国会的关于保障高度机密的信息记录并不完美，但不保证此步骤。创建一个联合委员会，还需要众议院或参议院改变了监督情报，这已经没有过去显著支持其目前的安排。 Finally, and most importantly, creating a joint committee for intelligence would continue to heighten the view that intelligence is something other than an accepted function of government, which tends to increase rather than complement oversight issues and problems. Although the reasons for which the current committee was made a select committee with tenure limits may have been valid in 1977, these may no longer be compelling or valid. There are equally compelling arguments in terms of the general effect of these arrangements on oversight to warrant reconsidering them. Unauthorized disclosures of classified information by Members or staff should trigger thorough investigations relying on strict enforcement of the applicable Federal statutes and House rules. Any individual who is conclusively determined to be the source of such unauthorized disclosures should be subject to the full range of penalties prescribed by the law. The rules promulgated by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct on July 12, 1995 should be strictly and consistently enforced by HPSCI. The current oversight structure puts intelligence -- as both a government function and as an issue -- at a distinct disadvantage. Unlike other national security functions, congressional oversight of intelligence is neither unified nor clearly delineated. The prime effect of this arrangement is seen in the degree to which intelligence programs are subjected to budget cuts largely because of how they are dealt with (i.e., as part of the defense authorization and appropriations process), rather than on their own merits. Recommendations It is important that the House act to "normalize" the way in which it oversees intelligence. By continuing to handle intelligence as an extraordinary function, the current oversight system predicates an approach that may be overly adversarial and may actually make effective oversight more difficult. The House should give serious consideration to converting HPSCI to a standing committee, with no limits on terms of service for Members. This would help "normalize" intelligence and greatly improve expertise and continuity on the Committee. The House should consider allowing HPSCI to have exclusive jurisdiction over all aspects of intelligence that are part of the larger intelligence architecture, while the House National Security Committee (HNSC) has exclusive jurisdiction over those aspects of intelligence solely related to military intelligence needs but that are not part of this larger architecture. Second, the House should consider creating a separate appropriations subcommittee exclusively for intelligence. The House should seek to better protect Intelligence Community equities by erecting legislative "firewalls" between HPSCI and HNSC during the authorization phase; similarly, efforts should be made to establish mechanisms for better legislative consultation and coordination with the House Appropriations Committee during the appropriations phase. Establish a semi-annual strategic intelligence review meeting between the new Committee on Foreign Intelligence and the House and Senate intelligence committees. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT The modern system of congressional oversight of intelligence -- select committees in the House and in the Senate specifically devoted to intelligence -- is almost twenty years old. Reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of this system, as well as the contribution that congressional oversight can and should make to intelligence is appropriate as part of the larger IC21 study. Issues regarding congressional oversight fall into two large categories: the general nature of how Congress carries out oversight and specific issues of organization and process related to intelligence oversight. Although this report touches on some generic issues of intelligence oversight, its findings and recommendations are restricted to the way in which the House of Representatives handles this function. Background: Evolution of Congressional Oversight of Intelligence It is important to recall how the current intelligence oversight system came into being. The two select committees were the direct result of the congressional (and executive) investigations into U.S. intelligence activities in 1975-76. Both Houses came to the conclusion that the past oversight system had been inadequate in terms of both the vigor with which it was carried out/1/ and the very limited number of Members who were privy to intelligence-related information. That older system reflected the gentleman's agreement nature of oversight that evolved during the Cold War. It accepted the necessity of intelligence -- and especially of intelligence activities (i.e., covert action), but treated them in an extraordinary manner because of their highly classified and extremely sensitive nature. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) was established on July 14, 1977 by H. Res. 658 of the 95th Congress and is governed by Rule XLVIII of the Rules of the House. The current system attempted to correct the main flaws in the older system in two major ways. First, the House decided that a committee with specific oversight over intelligence (albeit with different jurisdictions in the House and Senate) was necessary to ensure more vigorous and regular oversight. Second, in order to broaden the oversight base, each committee has "cross-over" Members from other committees that have an interest in intelligence or intelligence related issues: Appropriations; International Relations; Judiciary; and National Security. However, and this is perhaps ironic, the House continued to treat intelligence as something extraordinary, rather than as an accepted function of government similar to any others that are subject to oversight. This is reflected in two aspects of HPSCI. First, it is a select committee rather than a standing committee. Second, and derived from the first, are the rules limiting the length of consecutive service on the Committee. These tenure rules arose from the perception that the past intelligence overseers had grown "too cozy" with the intelligence agencies, thus becoming less vigorous in their oversight. Rotating the membership on a regular basis, it was believed, would avoid this type of overly close and potentially less critical relationship in the future. The Nature of Oversight: Adversary vs. Advocate Each committee charged with congressional oversight has a dual responsibility. The most obvious is to oversee the various agencies under its mandate, approve their budgets, investigate known or suspected problems, and report back to the House on these matters. Recognizing the impossibility of each Member being conversant with (or intensely interested in) all issues, the committee system delegates responsibility to the committees and accepts their leadership in specific areas. Given the checks and balances nature of the congressional-executive relationship, each committee has, at some level, an adversarial role with its Executive Branch opposites. The relationship need not be overtly or continuously hostile, but there is inevitably a certain amount of friction involved. The responsibility for being the House's resident experts on given programs and agencies also gives rise to a second role for each oversight committee, that of advocacy for those agencies and programs. It is only natural that those Members most interested in and most conversant with agencies and programs will also, on occasion, be their advocates. Increasingly constrained debates over budget shares, disinterest or outright hostility from other Members about agencies or programs for a wide variety of reasons, all put oversight committees in this advocacy role as well. Oversight, if carried out properly, should be a combination of these two roles. An excessive concentration on either will damage the ability of the committee to handle its issues effectively and can undermine the credibility of that committee among its colleagues. However, it is not clear that this norm of oversight behavior is widely accepted as proper for HPSCI. The fact that intelligence continues to be handled as an extraordinary issue in terms of oversight -- by virtue of a select committee and tenure limits -- suggests that it was at least expected at its origin that HPSCI would largely eschew advocacy role and that this expected emphasis on adversary rather than advocate has been tacitly accepted over the last twenty years. There remains a lingering uneasiness about intelligence and its role in the U.S. government that will never be completely resolved. At some level, the concept of secret agencies with classified budgets runs counter to some deeply felt view of what and how the U.S. government should behave. However, this less than full acceptance may actually be heightened rather than pacified by the current oversight system, which treats intelligence in a manner different from other government activities. Interestingly, several witnesses who appeared before HPSCI during IC21 hearings made the same point: intelligence, unlike virtually all other functions of government, has no natural advocates in the public at large. Its direct effect on the lives of most citizens is largely unfelt or unseen; its industrial base is too rarefied to build a large constituency in many areas; it is largely an "inside the Beltway" phenomenon in terms of location, logistics, budget and concern. The only places where intelligence can hope to find some base level of support are from its Executive Branch masters and its congressional overseers./2/ By having HPSCI as a select committee, Congress is, in effect, elevating intelligence. It is seen as an extraordinary issue requiring congressional organizational responses that depart from the norm. At some levels, this view of intelligence is accurate, but this also adds to the mystique that too often surrounds intelligence and often engenders wariness about it on the part of some Members. By making HPSCI a standing committee, intelligence would be treated like other "normal" functions of government. Making intelligence a less extraordinary issue might actually have positive effects, in that by being seen as less unique the very raison of the IC might not be questioned as much. The Propriety of Congressional Oversight of Intelligence Not surprisingly, we believe that the modern oversight system for intelligence residing in committees specifically devoted to that task has worked well. The House and Senate committees have achieved the two main goals of their founders in the 94th and 95th Congresses, creating a system that is more vigorous and more rigorous and is more broadly based than the previous system. All oversight is imperfect and is always limited by the degree to which the Executive Branch will be forthcoming with information. Given the highly classified and often compartmented nature of intelligence information, this may be a more exacting problem for the intelligence committees. Nonetheless, we continue to believe that the current system has largely been effective. We also do not see that any alternative to having a distinct committee oversee intelligence is preferable. Each oversight committee finds itself with a full agenda. Returning oversight to the House National Security Committee (HNSC) would act to the detriment of both those Members charged with intelligence oversight and the intelligence agencies themselves. We also understand that there will always be some in the intelligence agencies who will question, resent and perhaps resist the idea of Congress having extensive oversight powers. This view is not unique to intelligence. It is unlikely that there is any Executive agency or department that does not harbor similar sentiments at some time. Still, this feeling may run deeper in the Intelligence Community. Sharing information with "outsiders," even if they are elected officials, runs counter to the ethos of intelligence as some understand it. We are also aware of repeated complaints by intelligence agency heads about the amount of time they must spend either before Congress or responding to Congress. Again, this sentiment is not unique, and we are also not convinced that the burden is any more onerous for intelligence agencies than for any others. Effective oversight and an informed Congress are now considered among the expected norms of our system of government. We believe that oversight, if carried out seriously and with a modicum of support from intelligence agencies, not only helps ensure greater Executive branch effectiveness and propriety, but can also be a substantial force in rebuilding a sorely needed consensus to support intelligence agencies, programs and activities. A Joint Committee The issue of a joint congressional committee to oversee intelligence has been proposed in virtually every Congress since 1976. The main arguments in favor of a joint committee are: It would restrict the number of Members and staff (currently 33 Members and 50 staff in the House and Senate Committees) with access to highly classified information, thus limiting the possibility of unauthorized disclosures. It would underscore the seriousness with which Congress views intelligence, by handling it in this manner, similar to how atomic energy (i.e., nuclear weapons development and proliferation) issues were overseen from 1946-1977 by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. The main arguments against a joint committee are: Concern over restricting the number of Members and staff with access to intelligence information implies that Congress cannot be trusted with such information. Although the record of Congress with regard to safeguarding such information is not perfect, it remains far better than Executive Branch agencies. Congress must be vigilant in this regard, but this does not argue that current number need to be further restricted. By creating a joint committee, Congress would further heighten the view that intelligence is an extraordinary, rather than an accepted, function of government. No other executive branch agencies or functions are overseen by a joint committee, thus raising the issue of why intelligence needs to be overseen in this manner. The oversight scope of the two current intelligence committees are not identical. Intelligence programs are currently divided into three broad groups: NFIP: the National Foreign Intelligence Program, which includes the Director of Central Intelligence; CIA; and the national foreign intelligence or counterintelligence programs of the Defense Department, DIA, NSA, the Central Imagery Office, NRO, Army, Navy and the Air Force, the Departments of State, Treasury and Energy, the FBI and DEA; JMIP: the Joint Military Intelligence Program, covering intelligence for defense-wide or theater-level consumers; and TIARA: Tactical Intelligence and Related Activities, covering service unique and tactical intelligence needs. HPSCI oversees all of these intelligence programs, sharing oversight of TIARA with the HNSC. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) oversees only the NFIP. To create a joint committee, one House or the other would have to make substantial changes in the scope of oversight accorded to this new committee. It is highly questionable that the establishment of a joint committee would significantly reduce the number of Members and staffers that currently have access to classified information. No committee system will make Congress "leak proof." Even with a joint committee, there still would be a substantial number of Members and staff with access to intelligence information across several House Committees (Appropriations, National Security, Judiciary, International Relations), as well as their Senate counterparts. The joint committee structure is not suitable to an authorizing committee as it would complicate Congressional efforts to conduct our necessary oversight activities. By shrinking the number of Members familiar with the Intelligence Community, an inevitable result will be a diminution in Members' knowledge of the complexities of intelligence oversight. Additionally, the current system of two separate intelligence committees provides a more effective system of Constitutional checks and balances on Executive Branch activities. Finding: There is no compelling reason to convert the current system to a joint committee. As noted, Congress's record regarding safeguarding highly classified information is not perfect, but does not warrant this step. Creating a joint committee would also require either the House or the Senate to alter its current arrangements for intelligence oversight, which has not had significant support in the past. Finally, and most importantly, creating a joint committee for intelligence would continue to heighten the view that intelligence is something other than an accepted function of government, which tends to increase rather than complement oversight issues and problems. Select Committee/Appointment and Tenure Limits The reasons for these two aspects of the current oversight structure are described above. Although specific provisions for a standing intelligence committee could be established, changing HPSCI into a standing committee would most likely (but not necessarily) affect the process of assignment and lengths of service. The main arguments in favor of the current select committee arrangement relating to assignment procedures are: Intelligence activities are inherently different from other areas of government; secrecy is a paramount consideration on which depends the lives of agents attempting to assist the United States. Further, intelligence gathering deals with highly sensitive sources and methods of collection and analysis. The Speaker and Minority Leader already have special statutory standing to be advised of covert actions; allowing them to select Members of HPSCI is consistent with this prerogative and serves to increase the likelihood that only those with a demonstrated commitment to preserving the secrecy of classified information will be placed in oversight of intelligence agencies. Given the sensitivity of the Committee's work, Members who are unwilling to maintain the secrecy of classified information, despite the secrecy oaths required by House rules, should be removable without the necessity of contentious caucus votes. Maintaining the select committee status allows the Speaker to act with dispatch to remove Members who do not maintain the secrecy of classified materials. This approach underscores the view that intelligence must be handled in an extraordinary manner. The main arguments in favor of the current select committee arrangement relating to the length of member service are: Limiting service on HPSCI, in accordance with the current rule, to four terms (five for the chairman and ranking member) reduces the likelihood that Members will become "clients" of intelligence agencies, less rigorous in their oversight, or that they will be able unfairly to direct intelligence spending to their home districts. It also increases the likelihood that Members will reflect the diversity of public opinion regarding intelligence issues. Inasmuch as information available to HPSCI cannot be made available to all Members, rotating service will permit a larger percentage of Members to have some understanding of intelligence issues. For example, there are currently some 20 Members of the House who have previously served on the HPSCI, including three former chairmen. Such experience contributes to better informed decisions on intelligence budgets as well as on national security questions that require an appreciation for the limits of available intelligence information. Limiting length of service is consistent in spirit with widespread popular support for "citizen legislators" and with actions taken in the 104th Congress to limit the tenures of committee and subcommittee chairmen as opposed to the previous reliance on seniority. There are three primary attributes that most observers would acknowledge as differentiating select and standing committees: (1) Speaker appointments vs. caucus/conference appointments; (2) limited vs. permanent tenure; and (3) study and review authority vs. permanent jurisdiction. The main arguments supporting the establishment of a standing committee relating to assignment procedures are as follows: Intelligence is a normal function of government and is integral to the conduct of foreign policy and military operations. Creation of a standing intelligence committee would recognize this reality and demonstrate to the public the determination of Congress to provide appropriate oversight of sizable Federal agencies. HPSCI deals with policy questions not essentially different from other committees and should, like them, reflect the spectrum of views held by Members. Noting the unique scope and responsibilities involved in intelligence oversight, the Speaker should retain a central role in appointing Members to the new standing intelligence committee, as is the case under the select committee arrangement (see Rule X, clause 6, paragraph (f)). The Speaker should also retain the power he currently has to remove Members. Members of the standing intelligence committee should not, however, be removable by a Speaker who may be pursuing a political agenda. While these conditions would be unique among the House's standing committees, it may be appropriate for the committee's leadership to seek a waiver of the requirement that membership be appointed by the House from nominations made by party caucuses. As is the case with the Budget Committee, there could be a continuing requirement that some Members on the standing intelligence committee also serve on other specified committees with jurisdictions related to intelligence (e.g., National Security, International Relations, or Judiciary). A new standing intelligence committee would have to grapple with the issue of "crossover" Members from the National Security, International Relations, Judiciary and Appropriations Committees. These Committees were guaranteed seats on HPSCI as part of their loss of some oversight responsibilities. In standing committees, other than the Budget Committee, there are no limitations on length of service and seniority is usually the basis for appointment as chairman and ranking minority member. Effective with the 104th Congress, committee and subcommittee chairmen are limited to no more than three consecutive terms of service as committee leaders. Again noting the unique scope and responsibilities involved in intelligence oversight, it may be prudent for the Committee's leadership to seek a waiver of this tenure requirement. If HPSCI became a regular standing committee, then membership on it would be counted against the number of committee and subcommittees on which a Member could serve. This could be a difficult decision given the minimal amount of constituent interest likely to be found in intelligence matters. Such a change would also mean that members of "exclusive" committees, such as Appropriations, could no longer serve on the standing intelligence committee -- which could be a major loss in terms of easing the authorization/appropriations process. In addition, the overlap of Members from the "exclusive" committees ensures that intelligence concerns and needs receive sufficient attention from the National Security, International Relations, Judiciary, and Appropriations Committees. Finally, there is the issue of HPSCI Members not getting too comfortable or familiar with the Intelligence Community. This view is a direct outgrowth of the congressional investigations of the mid-1970s, which concluded that the former intelligence overseers (in the Senate Armed Services Committee and House Armed Services Committee) had become lax, in part by virtue of being too "cozy" with the Intelligence Community. Interestingly, this is not seen as a being a problem vis-a-vis HNSC or the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) and the military, nor between Judiciary and the FBI. The main arguments in favor of a standing committee arrangement relating to the length of member service are: Tenure limits under the current select committee process make it less likely that Members will become overly familiar with intelligence agencies, thus possibly diminishing the rigor of oversight. The current tenure limits have also been responsible to some degree for the rapid change in HPSCI chairmen since the initial tenure of Chairman Boland. Since he stepped down in 1985, there have been six chairmen. This has obvious costs in terms of continuity and, in effect, makes the staff much more responsible for that important and unseen facet of committee life. Some observers have argued that the rapid rotation of HPSCI chairmen makes consistent oversight more difficult. Limiting service on the Committee to four terms (or five for the chairman and ranking member) does not allow HPSCI to benefit adequately from Members' experience in the arcane world of intelligence, especially the complicated relationships among the agencies, the role of the DCI, and complex and separate budgeting procedures for national and tactical programs. Members acquire experience in intelligence behind closed doors at the expense of other duties and this experience should be fully utilized in overseeing intelligence activities. A significant portion of a six or eight year term on the Committee must be spent mastering intelligence, with less time left to use that expertise. This, in turn, makes Members of HPSCI much more dependent on the staff, who provide the greatest available base of institutional knowledge and continuity. Removal of the tenure limits would also allow the Committee to have a membership that is more consistently conversant with intelligence issues. This has not been an issue in the 104th Congress. However, in the 103rd Congress, 11 of 19 Members were new to HPSCI. As previously noted, this might also lead to greater stability in the chairmanship, assuming some continuity by one party. Even though HPSCI is a relatively new committee, existing term limits have already been overridden on several occasions to permit appointment of experienced Members to additional service on the Committee. The practice of Members leaving the Committee and subsequently returning in order to stay within restrictions has been criticized by some as contrary to the spirit of the House rules, although it has the benefit of providing Members who are enthusiastic and knowledgeable. More important changes would likely come in the Committee's membership. Assuming that the tenure limitations were abandoned, service on a standing intelligence committee might become more attractive. Currently, service on HPSCI has more overt drawbacks than attractions: it likely offers no help vis-a-vis the interests of the Members' districts; it detracts time and attention from issues of direct interest to constituents; and there is little Members can say about what they do on HPSCI. None of these would be likely to change. However, if service on the Committee offered a more reasonable prospect of a subcommittee chairmanship or Committee chairmanship over time, then this would be a new and major attraction. Finding: Although the reasons for which HPSCI was made a select committee with tenure limits may have been valid in 1977, these may no longer be compelling or valid. There are equally compelling arguments in terms of the general effect of these arrangements on oversight to warrant reconsidering them and to proceed with the establishment of a standing intelligence committee. In doing so, significant efforts should be made to secure the presence of "crossover" Members from the National Security, International Relations, Judiciary and Appropriations Committees within the standing committee's membership. Unauthorized Disclosure: Members and Staff The ability to safeguard highly classified information with which it has been entrusted is an issue for several committees, not just HPSCI. As noted, no committee can boast a perfect record in this regard, although the record of any congressional committee is far superior to the Executive Branch national security agencies. This does not excuse leaks from Congress, but it should serve to put in perspective the false complaints too often heard from Executive Branch officials about their inability to trust Congress. There are two views on the responsibility imposed on Congress by the receipt of classified information. There is general agreement that access to such information is necessary for Congress to carry out effective oversight. Some argue that Congress is responsible for engendering some degree of trust in how it handles this information so that Executive agencies will be forthcoming. Others reject this view, arguing that it is up to Executive agencies to win the trust of Congress and that these agencies have no choice but to provide Congress with the information it requires. With the advent of the 104th Congress, Members of HPSCI now take two oaths regarding the safeguarding of information, one as Members of the House and one as Members of the Committee. Some argued that there was some ambiguity in these oaths; we believe that the letter and the ruling issued by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct on July 12, 1995 offered important clarifications. That Committee noted first that HPSCI's Classified Information Oath embraces "any classified information provided to a Member by any person during the Member's term in office." Second, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct imposed upon Members an affirmative duty to inquire whether sensitive information in that Member's possession is indeed classified before disclosing it to the public. HPSCI staff undergo background investigations and are subject to the Rules of the House (see Rule XLIII, clause 13) regarding unauthorized disclosure of information. Some, primarily from the Executive Branch, have argued that at least staff, and perhaps Members, should be subject to the same security requirements as Executive Branch officials, particularly, a requirement to submit to comprehensive polygraph examinations on a regular basis. These remain controversial tools within the Executive Branch; there is no one standard for polygraphs nor is there a uniform policy among all Executive Branch agencies. Finding: Unauthorized disclosures of classified information by HPSCI Members or staff should result in swift and sure penalties against any individual who is conclusively determined to be the source of such disclosures. The rules promulgated by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct on July 12, 1995 should be strictly enforced by HPSCI. Jurisdiction Select committees usually do not have exclusive jurisdiction over an area of government. Standing committees usually do have exclusive jurisdiction although there are considerable areas of overlap among standing committees. Select committees usually do not have the legislative authority to report legislation to the floor. HPSCI already has authority to report legislation and this would presumably not be altered if it became a standing committee. One of the more difficult aspects of intelligence oversight is the fact that budget authorization for and some degree of general oversight of intelligence is divided between committees. This shared jurisdiction between HPSCI and HNSC derives from two factors. First, HNSC (then called Armed Services) had been the committee charged with intelligence oversight prior to 1977. The decision to continue some shared jurisdiction, at least over the TIARA portion of intelligence, allowed HNSC to preserve some of its jurisdiction. Second, the decision reflected the view that, given the importance of intelligence to military operations and the fact that the classified portion of the intelligence budget is lodged within the larger defense budget, this sharing was also appropriate. Nothing has happened to undercut these rationales, but it is important also to look at the effects of this shared oversight on intelligence. There are two major problems -- the effect on the creation of the overall intelligence budget and the extraneous pressures that are brought to bear on the intelligence budget. HPSCI is charged with authorizing a global intelligence architecture, i.e., the entire range of intelligence programs from TIARA up through the national programs. This architecture is supposed to be coherent and mutually supportive. This becomes difficult, from the standpoint of HPSCI, when a significant portion of this budget is, in effect, authorized twice and not always at the same levels. Replicating the Senate intelligence oversight system, wherein SSCI has no oversight functions regarding TIARA, would be one solution, but it would undercut the goal of creating a global intelligence architecture. The other solution would be to cede exclusive oversight to HPSCI of those systems designed to gather intelligence as part of this larger architecture, reserving to HNSC those parts of TIARA that are exclusively related to military intelligence needs but are not part of this larger architecture. The second issue derives from the fact that the intelligence budget remains classified and is "hidden" within the larger defense budget for both authorization and appropriation. HNSC divides the budget into functional categories: procurement, research and development, etc. None of these is a "logical" place to house the intelligence budget. In actuality, the defense and intelligence authorization processes move along parallel but unrelated tracks. When the intelligence budget is completed, it is then hidden within HNSC Subcommittee budgets. As these National Security functions then move through the congressional budget process they inevitably come under pressure for a variety of reasons. If, for example, the dominant view becomes that the research and development budget is too high -- and intelligence is hidden within that budget function -- then intelligence must take its "fair share" of reductions for reasons entirely extraneous to the merits of the intelligence programs. Moreover, as the entire intelligence budget is hidden in this manner, all programs are liable to such cuts, not just TIARA. Making HPSCI a standing committee would not in and of itself extend its exclusive jurisdiction over intelligence matters, and specifically, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Director of Central Intelligence. However, HNSC would retain oversight over the Department of Defense (DoD), which conducts both national and tactical intelligence operations. The State Department, including the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, would continue to be overseen by the House International Relations Committee, and there would be additional overlap in other areas. HPSCI also has concurrent jurisdiction in specified areas with the Judiciary Committee and the Committee on Space and Science, and Technology. With the reduced structure and personnel levels in DoD, emphasis on equipping the military with the highest-technology weapons and support systems, the emphasis on "support to the warfighter" and "support to military operations," that has permeated the defense and intelligence thought process, and the overall drive to achieve a balanced budget, the accepted practice of competing weapons and intelligence programs will not only likely continue, but could well grow. Those who argue that this process is justified, often point out that the majority of expenditures within the intelligence budget are within defense and that the reliance of newer systems on intelligence will properly balance out the trade-offs. Were we structuring intelligence to operate effectively to support only tactical operations, these arguments might be more compelling. But, it is increasingly clear that emphasis on strategic or baseline intelligence -- intelligence regarding a broader picture, not intelligence on strategic weapons systems -- is becoming more important to the policy maker and to the military commander, as it will allow us to avoid confrontations, plan operations, and respond to the unexpected issues that are increasingly part of our foreign policy, in a manner that is less reactive. If successful, such intelligence planning and operations can reduce the risk to U.S. military forces. Without adequate safeguards in the appropriations process, however, intelligence programs will continue to be subjected to those who have strong constituency interests in national security and the defense industry. The FY96 intelligence budget is a relevant case in point. For the first time in several years, HPSCI passed an intelligence budget that represented an increase in spending. The budget had bipartisan support and reflected the Committee's approach of beginning the process of planning for the future. Yet, during the appropriations process, when it was determined that there were significant overages in specific intelligence accounts, money was first taken out of intelligence to pay for specific weapons systems rather than being considered available to better fund other intelligence programs or operations. Likewise, intelligence funding is being sacrificed by the Clinton Administration in order to pay for non-intelligence military operations in Bosnia. The continued process of raiding the intelligence budget in order to pay bills within the military tends to be short-sighted and will serve only to inhibit effective intelligence operations in the future -- a fact that will ultimately increase the risk to U.S. forces and national security. Although many of the budget battles on intelligence programs are fought within the authorization process and, as identified elsewhere in IC21 staff studies, steps must be taken to "clean up" the various budget accounts (especially, JMIP and TIARA) to help coordination between the authorization committees, the wars are actually won or lost in the appropriations process. Therefore, designing safeguards within the House Appropriations Committee could be central to successful intelligence operations and support in the 21st century. Currently, the intelligence budget is reviewed and acted upon by the National Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, along with most of the rest of the defense budget. Such a structure allows -- in fact, encourages -- trade-offs to be made within the entirety of the defense budget, including intelligence. One option to help protect necessary intelligence equities might be a separate subcommittee on intelligence. Such a subcommittee would be responsible for review of the NFIP and JMIP budgets, leaving the TIARA budget review within the National Security Subcommittee. This would help protect "national" and "defense-wide" intelligence assets, while leaving those intelligence assets that are integral to service operations to be considered with the forces for which they are a part. (This assumes that there is a restructuring of the JMIP and TIARA programs as discussed elsewhere in IC21 studies.) The result would be a better protected, more coherent look at the intelligence budget, with trade-offs being made against intelligence resources rather than with non-intelligence, defense programs. The ability to focus trade-offs -- and, thus, planning -- within intelligence, also provides the ability to better understand the effects of such trade-offs more in terms of the synergy of our overall intelligence capabilities. Finding: The current oversight structure puts intelligence -- as both a government function and as an issue -- at a distinct disadvantage. Unlike other national security functions, congressional oversight of intelligence is neither unified nor discreet. The prime effect of this arrangement is seen in the degree to which intelligence programs are subjected to budget cuts largely because of how they are dealt with (i.e., as part of the defense authorization and appropriations process), rather than on their own merits. Therefore, serious consideration ought to be given to establishing a separate subcommittee on intelligence within the House Appropriations Committee and to shift a number of the current functions of the existing Appropriations Subcommittee on HNSC to this new subcommittee. Linkages Between HPSCI and the New Committee on Foreign Intelligence In separate IC21 studies, it has been proposed to create a new, high-level Committee on Foreign Intelligence (CFI) to enhance oversight of the Intelligence Community as well as to better focus the Community's collection and analytical capabilities. The new CFI is to be composed of senior Executive Branch policy makers who would advise the DCI on national intelligence priorities. Noting the sensitivity and importance of the CFI's role, it may be prudent to consider whether a regular oversight dialogue should be established between the CFI and the intelligence committees. A semi-annual strategic intelligence review meeting between the CFI and the intelligence committees might improve the flow of information and dialogue between the Executive and Legislative Branches on significant intelligence matters. Finding: Establish a semi-annual strategic intelligence review meeting between the new Committee on Foreign Intelligence and the intelligence committees. Conclusion: Findings and Recommendations Findings The current intelligence oversight system arose from a view that intelligence had to be handled in a manner that was extraordinary when compared to other functions of government. Although that view may have been warranted in the aftermath of the investigations in 1975-76, it is not warranted any longer. Indeed, by continuing to view intelligence in this manner, oversight and the work of the Intelligence Community are likely made more difficult. Advocacy for overseen agencies is legitimate and to some extent necessary. This has not been an accepted stance for the intelligence committees. We agree with the view of former DCIs that intelligence is such a restricted issue that Congress must be more active in building the necessary political consensus. The current oversight system has been largely effective, and clearly has responded to those problems that prompted the creation of the current committees. There is no compelling reason to convert the current system to a joint committee. As noted, Congress's record regarding safeguarding highly classified information is not perfect, but does not warrant this step. Creating a joint committee would also require either the House or the Senate to alter its current arrangements for intelligence oversight, which has not had significant support in the past. Finally, and most importantly, creating a joint committee for intelligence would continue to heighten the view that intelligence is something other than an accepted function of government, which tends to increase rather than complement oversight issues and problems. Although the reasons for which the current committee was made a select committee with tenure limits may have been valid in 1977, these may no longer be compelling or valid. There are equally compelling arguments in terms of the general effect of these arrangements on oversight to warrant reconsidering them. Unauthorized disclosures of classified information by Members or staff should trigger thorough investigations relying on strict enforcement of the applicable Federal statutes and House rules. Any individual who is conclusively determined to be the source of such unauthorized disclosures should be subject to the full range of penalties prescribed by the law. The rules promulgated by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct on July 12, 1995 should be strictly and consistently enforced by HPSCI. The current oversight structure puts intelligence -- as both a government function and as an issue -- at a distinct disadvantage. Unlike other national security functions, congressional oversight of intelligence is neither unified nor clearly delineated. The prime effect of this arrangement is seen in the degree to which intelligence programs are subjected to budget cuts largely because of how they are dealt with (i.e., as part of the defense authorization and appropriations process), rather than on their own merits. Recommendations It is important that the House act to "normalize" the way in which it oversees intelligence. By continuing to handle intelligence as an extraordinary function, the current oversight system predicates an approach that may be overly adversarial and may actually make effective oversight more difficult. The House should give serious consideration to converting HPSCI to a standing committee, with no limits on terms of service for Members. This would help "normalize" intelligence and greatly improve expertise and continuity on the Committee. The House should consider allowing HPSCI to have exclusive jurisdiction over all aspects of intelligence that are part of the larger intelligence architecture, while the HNSC has exclusive jurisdiction over those aspects of intelligence solely related to military intelligence needs but that are not part of this larger architecture. Second, the House should consider creating a separate appropriations subcommittee exclusively for intelligence. The House should seek to better protect Intelligence Community equities by erecting legislative "firewalls" between HPSCI and HNSC during the authorization phase; similarly, efforts should be made to establish mechanisms for better legislative consultation and coordination with the House Appropriations Committee during the appropriations phase. Establish a semi-annual strategic intelligence review meeting between the new Committee on Foreign Intelligence (CFI) and the intelligence committees. ------------------------------ FOOTNOTES /1/The most-oft cited example of the problem was the quote from Senator Leverett Saltonstall, a member of the Armed Services Committee, which was responsible for intelligence oversight. When asked by Senator Mike Mansfield why there had only been two committee meetings with the CIA in the past year, Senator Saltonstall replied: "...it is not a question of reluctance on the part of the CIA officials to speak to us. Instead, it is a question of our reluctance, if you will, to seek information and knowledge on subjects which I personally, as a Member of Congress and as a citizen, would rather not have, unless I believed it to be my responsibility to have it because it might involve the lives of American citizens." Congressional Record, April 9, 1956, p. 5924. /2/Testimony of Richard Helms and James Schlesinger before House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on May 22, 1995.