History
The 9/11 Commission in its final report recommended a reorganization of the U.S. intelligence community, including its budget and appropriations, which are Classified information. Currently, the House Committee on Appropriations and its Defense Appropriations Subcommittee have jurisdiction over intelligence funding, and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has jurisdiction over authorization of that funding. The 9/11 commission urged the creation of smaller committees responsible for both authorization and appropriation of intelligence funding, thereby limiting the number of lawmakers involved in the process and improving oversight. So far, the House Appropriations Committee has been reluctant to give up its long-standing prerogatives related to the appropriations process to separate committee. The Defense Subcommittee already has jurisdiction over military intelligence spending, and is reluctant to give up jurisdiction over the entire intelligence budget.
This is further complicated by the classified nature of intelligence funding. Currently, appropriations are authorized through a classified appendix or annex to the annual defense appropriations bill and the specific numbers are not released. The 9/11 commission urged the public release of the overall funding amounts, while keeping specific agency funding secret. The current administration opposes the release of this information, citing concerns that the release of such information, even on a broad basis, could benefit America’s enemies. However, specific funding for military intelligence budget is already public released, so the Commission saw no reason to continue keeping the remainder of the intelligence budget secret. Also, many in Congress are concerns that creating a stand-alone committee responsible for the appropriations while keeping them classified would further complicate the open, public operations of Congress.
Read more about this topic: United States House Appropriations Select Intelligence Oversight Panel
Famous quotes containing the word history:
“So in accepting the leading of the sentiments, it is not what we believe concerning the immortality of the soul, or the like, but the universal impulse to believe, that is the material circumstance, and is the principal fact in this history of the globe.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)
“A poet’s object is not to tell what actually happened but what could or would happen either probably or inevitably.... For this reason poetry is something more scientific and serious than history, because poetry tends to give general truths while history gives particular facts.”
—Aristotle (384–323 B.C.)
“The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom.”
—Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831)