Excerpt: The congressional ire was triggered by the CIA's refusal to participate in a committee hearing on computer security at the Agency. "Neither I nor any CIA representative will testify," wrote DCI George J. Tenet bluntly on July 17. He noted that House Intelligence Committee chairman Porter Goss "urged me not to testify." ---- SECRECY NEWS from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy July 19, 2001 ** INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT QUESTIONED ** FBI MANAGEMENT CRITICIZED INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT QUESTIONED "Is the CIA's refusal to cooperate with Congressional inquiries a threat to effective oversight of the operations of the Federal Government?" That rather leading question was the topic of an unusual hearing before two subcommittees of the House Government Reform Committee yesterday. The hearing was unusual because the established structures of intelligence oversight are rarely criticized within Congress itself, and Republican committee chairmen rarely speak of the CIA with anger and indignation. But yesterday they did. "The CIA is assaulting Congress's constitutional responsibility to oversee executive branch activities," said subcommittee chairman Rep. Stephen Horn (R-Calif.) "The CIA believes it is above that basic principle in our Constitution. We do not agree." "Tell me why I shouldn't be outraged," said Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), also a subcommittee chair. "When faced with persistent institutionalized [CIA] resistance to legitimate inquiries, we're compelled to reassert our authority," The congressional ire was triggered by the CIA's refusal to participate in a committee hearing on computer security at the Agency. "Neither I nor any CIA representative will testify," wrote DCI George J. Tenet bluntly on July 17. He noted that House Intelligence Committee chairman Porter Goss "urged me not to testify." See Tenet's letter here: http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2001/07/tenet.html This prompted a fascinating discussion at yesterday's hearing of the respective oversight roles of the House Intelligence Committee and the House Government Reform Committee; the adequacy of the House Intelligence Committee's performance; the definition of intelligence "sources and methods" (which, by House rule, are the exclusive purview of the Intelligence Committee); the need to limit oversight of sensitive intelligence matters; the role of the General Accounting Office in intelligence oversight; and other fundamental issues. The questions were generally better than the answers. Some of the testimony concerning national security classification was incorrect or misleading. But the official anger at the CIA was palpable, and may yet have policy consequences for the Agency. The witness statements from the hearing are posted here: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2001_hr/index.html#oversight "It is important to curtail growing GAO initiatives to investigate intelligence activities," according to a 1994 CIA memorandum on CIA policy toward the General Accounting Office that was released yesterday. The memo, authored by Stanley M. Moskowitz (who went on to fame if not fortune as CIA station chief in Tel Aviv), is posted here: http://www.fas.org/irp/gao/ciapolicy.html