Some Corrections on Intelligence Budget Secrecy
Earlier this week, we noted that it was increasingly unlikely that the budget for the National Intelligence Program (NIP) would be removed from concealment in the Defense Department budget and given its own budget line item, as the Director of National Intelligence and others had proposed.
Instead, the status quo is likely to persist, we wrote, because “Congress likes it that way.” But this remark was too glib. The language we cited from the House version of the Defense Appropriations Act that would prohibit NIP separation has not been adopted in the Senate. Influential members of the Senate Intelligence Committee actually favor a separate NIP budget as a way to increase transparency and to provide the DNI with greater control of appropriated funds. So Congress is not of one mind on this question, and it has not completed action on the prohibition proposed in the House.
We also mistakenly credited the DNI with “voluntarily” disclosing the amount of the FY2012 NIP budget request in February of this year. But in fact, that disclosure was not voluntary. It was mandated by Congress in the FY2010 Intelligence Authorization Act (section 364).
While disclosure of the budget request for the National Intelligence Program is required by law, the disclosure of the budget request for the Military Intelligence Program (MIP) is not specifically required. Secrecy News asked the Pentagon to disclose it anyway. Officials said a response to that request would be forthcoming “sometime around January 1, 2012.”
As the United States continues nuclear modernization on all legs of its nuclear triad through the creation of new variants of warheads, missiles, and delivery platforms, examining the effects of nuclear weapons production on the public is ever more pressing.
“The first rule of government transformation is: there are a lot of rules. And there should be-ish. But we don’t need to wait for permission to rewrite them. Let’s go fix and build some things and show how it’s done.”
To better understand what might drive the way we live, learn, and work in 2050, we’re asking the community to share their expertise and thoughts about how key factors like research and development infrastructure and automation will shape the trajectory of the ecosystem.
Recognizing the power of the national transportation infrastructure expert community and its distributed expertise, ARPA-I took a different route that would instead bring the full collective brainpower to bear around appropriately ambitious ideas.