Saturday, October 23, 2010
THE CASE AGAINST LYNN JENKINS CHAPTER 47 - SHE'S WEAK ON TERRORISM, AGAIN!
This is Lynn Jenkins, she does not represent us
Public Law 111-259 received the President's signature on October 7th. This is the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and came from the House as H.R. 2701. Lynn Jenkins voted against H.R. 2701 on February 26th, when it passed the House by a margin of 235 to 168, roll call number 73. The bill passed through the Senate, with an amendment, by unanimous consent. Before returning to campaign for re-election Lynn Jenkins voted "no" on the bill that funds America's Intelligence Community as our troops are on the ground, roll call 558.
The Senate amendment was in the nature of a substitute, which means the language of the amendment supplants the original language of the bill. This amendment was proffered by California's Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein with retiring Republican Senator Kit Bond of Missouri cosponsoring.
This was not a case of smoke and mirrors as the Senate Amendment was germane to the bill. Senators Feinstein and Bond are well known for their expertise on matters of Intelligence. Senator Feinstein is the chairman of the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence. Senator Bond is the co-chairman of that committee. These are persons who know what the talk about when it comes to Intelligence.
Was Lynn Jenkins opposed to the Director of National Intelligence making publicly available an unclassified summary of: (1) intelligence relating to recidivism of detainees currently or formerly held by DOD at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and (2) the likelihood that such detainees will engage in terrorism or communicate with persons in terrorist organizations?
Is she opposed to transparency in the appropriations process? The law amends the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 to: (1) direct the President, on the same date that each annual budget is submitted, to disclose the aggregate amount of appropriations requested for that fiscal year for the NIP; and (2) direct the DNI, within 30 days after each fiscal year, to disclose the aggregate amount of funds appropriated by Congress for the NIP for that fiscal year. Authorizes the President to waive either disclosure by submitting to the intelligence committees a statement that such disclosure would damage national security, supported by the President's reasoning.
Could it be she didn't like the new law's auditing aspects? The bill she voted against, now law, amends the Inspector General Act of 1978 to require the heads of the National Reconnaissance Office, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency to appoint independent inspectors general for their agencies (thus giving such inspectors general the same information-gathering power and independence as is currently held by inspectors general of other federal agencies). Allows the Secretary of Defense to prohibit the inspector general of an IC element from initiating, carrying out, or completing any audit or investigation if the Secretary determines that the prohibition is necessary to protect vital US national security interests. Requires notification of such determination to the defense and intelligence committees.
Or did she thinks it costs too much?
What America can ill afford is a Congresswoman shortchanging our Intelligence Community.