From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce)
Subject: "Meaningless" Congressional intelligence oversight law
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 22:46:22 GMT

------------------  FORWARDED POSTING  -------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines
From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Subject: CENSORED: MEANINGLESS CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT LAW
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 09:15:08 GMT

MEANINGLESS CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT LAW APPROVED

Last year's controversial Intelligence reauthorization bill, spawned
in the wake of the Iran-Contra fiasco, has returned in an updated
version that has once again swept through Congress amid minimal fanfare
from the national press.  After a year of backroom negotiations between
the Administration and the congressional intelligence committees, both
houses of Congress passed H.R. 1455 on July 3 l . President Bush signed
the new bill on August 16.

The intelligence bill is essentially the same as last year's proposal,
which was pocket vetoed by the President over provisions which he felt
encroached on his executive authority.  The new bill, while not giving
the President exactly what he wants, is vague enough to satisfy both his
desire for flexibility and Congress's desire for statutory covert
action oversight authority.

One key provision from last year's version, which the President objected
to, was a requirement that the President authorize all covert actions
in advance with a written ''finding.''  Under the old bill, this
provision has two exceptions.  First, in an emergency situation, the
President has 48 hours after the fact to draft a written finding.
Second, while the finding would usually be provided to both the House
and Senate Intelligence Committees, in extraordinary cases the President
may limit notification to congressional leaders.

The President's first objection was to have to notify Congress when
soliciting third-party nations or individuals to take part in covert
operations which he felt would seriously hamper foreign policy efforts.
The new law will only require the White House to notify Congress if a
third-party will participate "in any significant way" in a covert action
and even then their identity may remain confidential.

The second objection dealt with the wording on how fast the President
should notify Congress after issuing a "finding" authorizing a covert
action.  The original bill required the President to inform Congress "in
a timely fashion,' ' which lawmakers sought to define as "within a few
days."  Committee members now concede that the President may interpret the
phrase as he sees fit.

President Bush made no secret of his intentions to utilize this loophole
at will.  Upon signing the legislation he stated that sometimes
disclosure "could significantly impair foreign relations, the national
security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance
of the executive's constitutional duties."

Critics say that these loopholes are large enough to render the new
oversight law, and Congress' enforcement role, meaningless.

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER:  SCOTT SOMOHANO)

SOURCE:CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY WEEKLY REPORT 1414 22nd st., NW, 4th
Floor Washington, DC 20037

DATE:  813/9 1

TITLE:  "Senate Clears Retooled Measure Strengthening Hill Oversight"

AUTHOR:  Pamela Fessler

SOURCE:  WALL STREET JOURNAL 200 Liberty st., New York, NY 10028

DATE:  8/16/91

Title:"Bush Signs Funding sill For intelligence Agencies"

SOURCE:  LOS ANGELES TIMES Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles CA 90037

DATE:  8/l/91

Title:  "New Restrictions on Covert Action Passed by Congress

AUTHOR:Michael Ross

COMMENTS:  Author Pamela Fessler felt the issue received minimal
coverage with little if any network television or news weekly
coverage.  "Considering the fact that the legislation was the main
legislative by-product of the Iran-contra scandal, it's surprising it
didn't receive more attention," Fessler said.  "The bill completely
changed the requirements the administration must meet in reporting
covert actions to Congress -- presumably allowing for greater oversight.
"

In general, Fessler believes the public would benefit by being made more
aware of what Congress does and how the legislative system works.  "They
most often are exposed to scandals and pay raises now," she continued.
"People have a very distorted picture of Congress and government in
general, leading, I think to a lack of participation in the political
process.  "

If any interests were served by the lack of coverage given the intelli-
gence oversight legislation, Fessler believes it might have been the
media themselves.  "Let's face it," she concluded, "some of this stuff
is boring and hard to cover.  It's much easier to cover a congressional
pay raise debate or a fight over taxes "

-------------------  END OF FORWARDED POSTING  -----------------------
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.sci.physics.new-theories