To introduce intelligence reforms, reform Congress first

[bemildred]

---

Why did the Senate bill scuttle these internal reforms of what the commission called a "dysfunctional" system? Because they would have threatened the turf of powerful legislators. To be blunt, the senators put their own perks and prerogatives ahead of the nation's security.

The House version of the bill isn't finished yet, but it's likely to be even worse. Not only have members ignored calls for internal reform, but the Republican leadership has loaded the bill with controversial proposals - apparently in the hope that Democrats will have to vote against it, giving Republicans an easy script for political attack ads.

"It's outrageous. The American people should be angry," says former Senator Bob Kerrey, who was a member of the Sept. 11 Commission and for eight years served as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He argues that it would have been better to drop the executive branch changes if Congress was not going to reform itself. "These are secret agencies," he explains. "Unless you put in place strong oversight, it isn't going to work."

By focusing on appropriations power, the commission was challenging one of Congress' most sacred cows. Longtime Capitol Hill observers know the appropriations committees are where Congress' real clout resides, and what sustain its culture of logrolling and mutual back-scratching.

Daily Star

[pacalo]

1. This is truly disgusting.

"The appropriators rule here - the fix is in," says Senator John McCain. The maverick Arizona Republican has compiled data showing that in the 10 years the Republicans have controlled Congress, the number of "earmarked" pork-barrel spending projects moving through appropriations has grown from 4,126 a session to 14,040.

[bemildred]

2. Been that way as long as I can remember.

As long as incumbency is a lock, I expect it will stay that way.