Congressman Peter Welch came to the Statehouse Monday to announce that he will introduce legislation requiring the disclosure of spending levels at the 16 U.S. intelligence-gathering agencies.
How much the U.S. spends on intelligence activities is currently classified information. Welch’s bill would require the president to include the total dollar amount requested for each intelligence agency in his annual budget.
“We need more, not less transparency,” Welch said, “The fact that you have, in effect, secret budgets means that you’re not going to have any real shot at accountability.”
Those secret budgets have led to “dubious policies, wasted money and questionable effectiveness,” according to Welch.
“My view is that we can be safe and we can have public support for this work if there’s more transparency,” Welch told reporters, adding that making the intelligence budget classified is effectively a “gag order” on public debate.
He hopes that disclosure of each agency’s budget request will spark discussions about how the money is being spent. Welch wants to ensure the government is avoiding duplication of certain functions.
“Without that top-line number it’s hard to imagine you’ll get beneath the surface to answer some of these questions,” Welch said. Even if the new legislation is passed, he acknowledged that line items in the budget requests would remain opaque to the public and members of Congress who don’t serve on intelligence, defense or appropriations committees.
William Sullivan, a retired senior official at the National Security Agency, joined Welch in Montpelier and praised the proposed bill. He said it strikes the proper balance between the public’s right to know and the government’s need to keep its intelligence-gathering capabilities secret from adversaries.
Welch said he has bipartisan backing for the proposal, but partisan gridlock is an impediment to passing any new laws.
The Intelligence Budget Transparency Act, is co-sponsored by Reps. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Welch said he supports the recommendations of the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, which was convened to suggest reforms of the National Security Agency’s metadata collection program.
There are a number of reforms President Barack Obama can implement using his executive powers, but other reforms will require legislation, Welch said. He expects “vigorous debate” on the legislative side of those reform efforts.
Obama will make an address Friday detailing his plan of action on intelligence reforms.
Among the most popular reforms that have emerged in the wake of the NSA’s metadata collection is the placement of a public advocate on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court). Welch and Sullivan both said this new position will help to protect U.S. citizens’ interests.
Welch said he didn’t have any direct knowledge of the veracity of charges the NSA may have spied on members of Congress. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., is leading an inquiry into the matter. In a recent letter, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., asked the NSA about congressional snooping and was issued an equivocal answer.
Sullivan, who once managed the NSA’s legislative affairs office, bristled at the idea the NSA might spy on Congress.
“The allegations of that are totally and utterly unfounded,” Sullivan said in response to a reporter’s question. “It would be suicidal for an intelligence agency in this country to do what you’re talking about, because that would be the end of the agency. It would be immediately disestablished.”
The NSA is a foreign intelligence agency, Sullivan noted, which is constrained in its domestic intelligence gathering. It can only access the content of domestic communications when the other side is a foreign entity, and it can demonstrate to the FISA Court that the U.S. party is linked to or suspected of terrorism, a domestic saboteur or a foreign agent, Sullivan said. Otherwise, the communications swept up in the NSA’s metadata collections are devoid of personally identifying information, he added.
“NSA does not spy on Americans,” Sullivan reiterated.
The impetus for debate over the activities of U.S. intelligence agencies is the extensive document leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. Sullivan doesn’t think Snowden understood what he was making public and he questioned his motivation for revealing government secrets. He said a whistle-blower makes a serious effort to advocate for change within an organization before going public, and Sullivan said he’s not aware that Snowden made such efforts.
Haviland Smith, a retired career intelligence officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, agreed, adding that Snowden and other recent whistle-blowers, such as Chelsea Manning – formerly Pvt. Bradley Manning – should not be deified for shucking the responsibilities they accepted when taking their positions.
“As far as I’m concerned they went way past the pale,” said Smith, who also joined with Welch to announce the new bill. “Having said that, they’ve probably started a process that in the long run, hopefully, will end up with us being better off than we were before the process started.”
