Exclusive: House Dems Planning Major Changes To Secret CIA Briefings Of Congress
In a move that could spark another fight with the GOP over CIA intelligence and secrecy, House Dems are quietly preparing to make major changes to the ways the CIA briefs Congress on covert actions, by broadening the pool of members of Congress who will have access to such private briefings, a source familiar with deliberations says.
Dems on the House Intelligence Committee have drafted a new bill that would strip the President of his authority to limit such briefings to the so-called “Gang of Eight” — the leaders of the House and Senate from both parties, and the leaders of the Congressional Intelligence committees — and allow a larger group of members of Congress to attend.
The move, which is being championed internally by House Intel chair Silvestre Reyes, would also compel the CIA to keep a far more detailed record of these briefings, though these details still need to be worked out. The source, who is familiar with the contents of the bill, confirmed the details to me.
The new measure — which would mean as many as two dozen members of Congress would be kept abreast of CIA covert actions — would lessen the likelihood of he-said-she-said arguments over what the CIA told Congress, such as those that have erupted over what Nancy Pelosi was told and when.
It could also spark a battle with Republicans, who may charge that increasing the number of people with knowledge of covert actions could compromise our security.
The measure (to be included in this summer’s big intelligence authorization bill) would strike a provision from the National Security Act of 1947 that gives the President the authority to limit such briefings to the “Gang of Eight” in Congress if he (or she) chooses.
Instead, it would allow all members of the Intelligence committee — which numbers nearly two dozen — to attend the briefings if they wish. If the President wants only the “Gang of Eight” to attend, it would be left to the Intel committee to determine what to do and would empower it to ignore the President’s wishes.
It’s unclear how Republicans, or Dems on the Senate side, or the White House will react to this news when it goes public; it could spark a major fight that could prevent these reforms from being enacted. This is one to watch.
***************************************
Update: Both Duncan Black and Spencer Ackerman argue persuasively that should this measure pass, it would represent a real step forward towards genuine Congressional oversight over the intelligence bureaucracy.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
And how would this affect the question of the inherent restrictions on oversight when people who are briefed are unable to divulge what they’ve learned, no matter how troubling or extra-constitutional? Is there some legislative plan to address this?
great question, ABC. I’ll look into it. thx.
I don’t think the Republicans will have much of a problem with this (depending on specifics). Heck, even Cheney wanted more members of Congress briefed: “Cheney was adamant that the enhanced interrogations were needed to preserve national security, according to two participants. He advocated briefing more lawmakers about the program, against the wishes of National Security Council officials who sought to inform only the top members of the intelligence committees.”
sbj — very possible. Dems aren’t sure what to expect. the question is whether GOPers figure out a way to make an issue out of it, which doesn’t seem out of the question.
@Greg: I suppose they could come up with that same old BS about not being consulted on the specifics. Or the Dems could unreasonably limit amendments and give the Repubs an opening. This could also be used as an opportunity to poke Pelosi again (pardon the visual) and propose a bipartisan commission to investigate whether the CIA lied to her.
.
I think those would all be losers and they should support reforming this seemingly dated rule. ABC makes a good point about the incessant problems of leaks and oversight – those specifics are important and deserve bipartisan agreement. I’m tired of leaks coming from the CIA and from Congress about ’spy’ stuff – let’s put some teeth into this so that CIA leaks intended to cause political damage can be meaningfully punished. At the same time let’s make sure that oversight can be effective.
While it is an interesting notion to perhaps widen the circle of those in Congress being briefed, I can imagine it is not without risks.
However, something that I believe has been demonstrated to be critical, is requiring that those briefings are FAR more accurately documented than they have been. Those who are briefed should be able to take their own notes (and secure them appropriately), and an official record of all of the conversation that went on, along with those in attendance MUST be part of that briefing record. Having briefers continue to make up those reports after the fact, based on their best recollection, or based on what they decide they “want” to have documented, is simply negligent in the extreme. To my mind, until they change that standard, briefing records from the CIA have absolutely no credibility, and can’t even be legitimately called “records” at all.
The problem is that the CIA feels it shouldn’t need Congressional oversight at all, that Congress should just trust them. If you add more people, the CIA will probably be even less forthcoming about their operations than they are currently. That’s not an argument against this though. The CIA needs to be brought to heel, and this is a small but deliberate step in that direction.
Coverage and commentary of this bill seems to be proceeding from the point of view that this is a widening of briefing. What it is is an attempt to get rid of the ‘Gang of Eight’ exception that has, over time, swallowed the actual current rule, which is that only under exceptional circumstances, with a presidential finding, can briefings be limited.
Members of Congress were wrong not to publicly demand the presidential finding and insist on full committee briefing in its absence.
Allowing themselves to be split up into still smaller groups was a further tactical error, but the primary failure to insist on the law being followed was the fatal step.
It’s not at all beyond possibility that Shelby’s al-Qaeda leak was arranged by Cheney so the VP could publicly and privately browbeat the intelligence committees by threatening to withhold briefings entirely.
ToNell: Shelby’s al-Qaeda leak arranged by Cheney? People need to blame Congress for their stupidity, and Obama. Not the previous administration.
I understand the chairs of the house being allowed to be briefed on the goings-on in the spook world. But a dozen more including their staffs is another stupid and serious mistake. With so many people knowing our intelligence knowledge and how we collect it our National Security is greatly compromised.
Leave Pelosi out of the briefings.
Giving Cheney Shelby’s source with al-quaeda is more blaming the past administration. Demos had majority rule then, they have a stranglehold now with an inexperienced president who also is a democrat .Allowing 12 more people access to our intelligence in the spook world, and how we use it is a dangerous mistake. Besides, Pelosi has and likes her power and thinking she’s president (even though she’s third in the line of succession.
Pelosi leading an effort to redefine CIA briefings? That’s like Dracula redefining procedures with the blood bank. Isn’t Pelosi the one who accused the CIA of regularly lying to Congress? Didn’t she fail to produce one iota of evidence of this charge? Didn’t she change her story four or five times?Didn’t she completely and totally get away with this charade? Didn’t the Republicans allow her to completely and totally get away with it?
Alzheimers is Nancy’s problem.
About that CIA doesn’t lie thing from Panetta.
Richard Helms, arguably the greatest spy in CIA history and the director, was convicted of lying to Congress.
Reagan’s spymaster Casey admitted to lying to Congress and running a secret war against Nicaragua despite a Congressional ban.
They are spies, after all, what they do is lie.
Does this bill exclude Biden? He doesn’t even require brigery to divulge national secrets.
The House doesn’t need change the way the CIA briefs Congress. They just have to make sure Nancy is awake and coherent during the briefing.