Congressman Says Program Was Disclosed by Informant

[Rose Siding]

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Sunday that the Bush administration briefed the panel on a "significant" intelligence program only after a government whistle-blower alerted him to its existence and he pressed President Bush for details.

The chairman, Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, wrote in a May 18 letter to Mr. Bush, first disclosed publicly on Saturday by The New York Times, that the administration's failure to notify his committee of this program and others could be a "violation of law."

Mr. Hoekstra expanded on his concerns in a television appearance on Sunday, saying that when the administration withholds information from Congress, "I take it very, very seriously."

Mr. Hoekstra and other officials would not discuss the nature of the undisclosed intelligence programs. But officials have said he was not referring to the National Security Agency's wiretapping operation or to the Treasury Department's bank monitoring program, both of which he was informed about. Mr. Hoekstra made clear on Sunday that he was particularly troubled by the failure to notify the Intelligence Committee of one particular major program.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/10/washington/10hoekstra.html?hp&ex=1152504000&en=f930180e7294711a&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[AlCzervik]

1. same informer that leaked him the bogus wmd info?

[rodeodance]

2. and now things are rosy- as long as he is in the know.

[Toots]

6. In the know

:rofl: for that one thing only. How much more is being witheld. The Administration has established a pattern of behavior here.

[rodeodance]

3. says in this case the "whistle-blower process was working appropriately."

...But on Sunday, discussing how he learned of the administration's failure to brief the committee, Mr. Hoekstra said, "This is actually a case where the whistle-blower process was working appropriately."

"Some people within the intelligence community brought to my attention some programs that they believed we had not been briefed on," he said, adding, "They were right."

In talks with the administration, the committee "asked by code name what some of these programs" were, Mr. Hoekstra said. "We have now been briefed on those programs. But I wanted to reinforce to the president and to the executive branch and the intelligence community how important, and by law, the requirement that they keep the legislative branch informed of what they are doing."

Officials said in interviews last week that the administration had briefed the House Intelligence Committee at least twice in recent weeks, after Mr. Hoekstra's letter, to discuss details of the previously undisclosed programs. But some committee members say they remain wary that the administration is continuing to withhold information.

[rodeodance]

4. says in this case whistle blowers should be protected.

.....Regarding the leaks of classified information, Mr. Hoekstra said at a hearing on May 26 that he thought that there should be strong protections for intelligence agency whistle-blowers who bring their concerns to Congress, reducing the risk of leaks to the news media.

"We need to make sure the whistle-blower process is an open door," Mr. Hoekstra said at the hearing. Otherwise, he said, when intelligence officers see something they believe to be illegal or unwise, "they just go, 'Well, I'll just go to the press.' "

Congress is considering stronger protections for whistle-blowers, and a bill approved by the House Government Reform Committee in April would make it easier for intelligence agency employees to report concerns without fear of retaliation from superiors. But last month the Senate passed a separate whistle-blower bill that excludes employees of the intelligence agencies from its protections.

[Biernuts]

5. There should be a single secure environment in Congress

where a whistleblower can take a classified issue. Today, Committee Jurisdiction plays the dominent role in who can receive the complaint.

The HPSCI and SSCI (Intel Committees) are appropriate for complaints involving the Intelligence Community - unless of course, DoD Special Access Programs (SAPS) are involved. In that case, the Intel Committees are not accessed to the information and committee jurisdiction is the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.

A person accusing the military of illegal actions would normally go to the armed services committees, unless the complaint involves actions by the national intelligence community. Then the complaint rightfully should go to the HPSCI and SSCI.

In short - Congress has myriad fiefdoms that control the budgets and authorizations for the government organizations over which they exercise cognizance - and the member that strays outside his/her lane runs into powerful committee chairs who guard their turf.