Remember the flap over Nancy Pelosi's secret CIA briefings about torture? Not only was there considerable disagreement about what she was told, but there was also the claim was that her oath of secrecy prevented her from revealing whatever it was. Congress is attempting to do something about the situation, but Obama is threatening a veto.
San Francisco Chronicle
Such secret briefings are what got House Speaker and San Francisco Rep. Nancy Pelosi in hot water just weeks ago, over what she was told when about torture. Typically, highly sensitive briefings are limited to the top Democratic and Republican leaders of Congress and the Intelligence Committees, known as the Gang of 8.
The problem as Democrats have described it is that the gang members are sworn to secrecy, making it impossible for any to mount legislative resistance to a White House policy or conduct effective oversight. That's the reason they said they were helpless when confronting former President Bush on torture, surveillance and the rest in the aftermath 9/11.
House Dems want to expand that briefing to more than 40 members. A bit unwieldy perhaps, but Obama's threatening a veto.
President Obama and his White House staff seem to think that the way Bush did business was just fine and they want to keep it that way. The bill in question is HR2701. The White House has issued a policy statement saying that they strongly object to section 321.
"Unfortunately, section 321 undermines this fundamental compact between the Congress and the President as embodied in Title V of the National Security Act regarding the reporting of sensitive intelligence matters -- an arrangement that for decades has balanced congressional oversight responsibilities with the President's responsibility to protect sensitive national security information. Section 321 would run afoul of tradition by restricting an important established means by which the President protects the most sensitive intelligence activities that are carried out in the Nation's vital national security interests."
I suppose that we are supposed to assume that the present administration won't be engaging in activities that the American public would find objectionable so there is really nothing to worry about.