House Bill Would Open Up Intelligence Oversight
A bipartisan bill introduced in the House would require the House Intelligence Committee to disclose information on intelligence activities to other congressional committees, as long as such disclosure did not reveal sensitive intelligence sources or methods.
“In order to exercise proper oversight, House committees need all pertinent information and, unfortunately, that process isn’t functioning as it was intended to,” said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who introduced the bill.
“We should not have to rely on the morning paper to learn about secret government programs, particularly when we sit on committees that are charged with overseeing such programs,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), a co-sponsor.
See the “Intelligence Oversight Act” (H.R. 5954) here.
In a move that may enhance its legislative prospects, the bill has been referred to the House Rules Committee rather than to the House Intelligence Committee, UPI’s Shaun Waterman reported (h/t POGO).
This report serves as a landscape assessment and toolbox from which local governments can negotiate an informed position when it comes to the levers available to them and includes a first-of-its kind analysis of eight executed community benefits agreements.
When a hurricane hits, it’s all hands on deck – that goes for federal data, too. Pulling back from our investments in timely, accurate, and accessible public data will only make us less prepared and put us all at greater risk.
This is bigger than a singular elimination of race and ethnicity questions. It could accelerate the second wave of widespread reductions to demographic data, leaving public health officials with even less information to deliver better health outcomes for all Americans.
Soft law was never meant to be a permanent solution. Treating it as one, and letting the sandcastle stand in for the skyscraper indefinitely, is how we end up with a decade of voluntary commitments and no enforceable accountability to show for it.