Legislation: House Intel Committee Needs to Share Info

UPI's Shaun Waterman's story on a bill to allow other committees in Congress access to information held by the House intelligence committee touches on an issue near and dear to my heart nowadays: the broader need for Congressional access to classified information to conduct oversight.

I've got a lot to say on the matter, but will refrain, except for this bit of info, which may bolster the case for the legislation.  It turns out that the House intelligence committee doesn't make it easy for non-committee members of Congress to get access to classified information in their possession.  At least relative to other committees which also deal with highly secretive national security information, such as the House Armed Services Committee.  According to the Congressional Research Service (pdf):

Procedures controlling access to classified information held by committees exist throughout Congress. These set conditions for viewing classified information and determine whether legislators who are not on a panel are eligible for access to its classified holdings and attend closed hearings or executive sessions. Other rules govern staff access and the sharing of classified information with other panels in the chamber.

The most exacting requirements along these lines have been developed by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; these rules are based on its 1977 establishing authority (H.Res. 658, 95th Congress) and reinforced by intelligence oversight provisions in public law, such as the 1991 Intelligence Authorization Act (P.L. 102-88; 105 Stat. 441). Representatives who are not members of the Intelligence Committee go through a multi-stage process (Committee Rule 10, 108th Congress). Thus, it is possible for a non-member to be denied attendance at its executive sessions or access to its classified holdings. By comparison, the rules of the House Armed Services Committee (Rule 21, 108th Congress) “ensure access to [its classified] information by any member of the committee or any other Member of the House of Representatives who has requested an opportunity to review such material.” [my emphasis]

-- Nick Schwellenbach

Comments

[Posted on: Aug 04, 2006 at 03:01 AM]

Beth,

I have no idea who wrote the "friends of Bloch" letter - don't have a dog in this fight like you do. But I can tell you that irrespective of what IG Mcfarland says, it won't have the credibility of warm spit.

I was a whistleblower who disclosed transparent and recurring fraud, abuse, and gross mismanagement in the OPM and it's OIG. An integrity challenged OSC, MSPB, and Dept of Justice worked assiduously for five years trying to kill my disclosures.

Ulltimately, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals remanded to the MSPB. Contrary to the opinion of the OSC and MSPB, the court noted in it's decision that if my allegations were true, they constituted clear evidence of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.

But I settled my case and retired in 2003 when the MSPB admin. judge refused to accept even written testimony by McFarland's own Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations affirming personal knowledge of repeated reprisal against me by McFarland and his Dep. Inspector General.

I began my case in 1998 by providing Ms. Kaplan's OSC with more than ample insider evidence of high level fraud by both OPM senior management and by senior OIG audit managers. Instead, Ms. Kaplan's minions used grossly and ridiculously contorted logic to destroy every reasonable basis for initiating an investigation.

Ms. Kaplan's OSC was a sick joke as an investigative entity or honest broker for whistleblower disclosures. The mentality of the OSC and the MSPB remains constant regardless of which party is in power. For this reason, meaningful whistleblower protection in the executive branch will never become reality.

I've spoken with you and Danielle about my case and responded to your personal request for written info. for use by your counsel. I know you're hoping that McFarland will find for your cause.

Believe what you will of McFarland's final judgement. But it's common knowledge that this OIG's product is distinguished only by it's level of incompetence, dishonesty, and political expedience.

Ken Huffman
Former OPM Assistant Inspector General (1990-1998)