Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska. We have improved this. We have said 180 days for the effective date. If the President decides it is in the national security interest to extend that, he can do that. If he decides he wants to implement it earlier than 180 days in the national security interest, he can do that as well. It is a good compromise. I support it.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3903, as modified

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I rise respectfully to oppose the amendment of the Senator from Alaska. The 9/11 Commission recommended that we disclose not only the bottom line of what we spend on intelligence but the budgets of each of the 15 constituent agencies. The Governmental Affairs Committee decided that we could respond and respect the public's right to know by putting out the bottom line number. That means X billion dollars. No details about what goes to what agency or certainly not what goes to what program or what personnel. But we were not ready to order the disclosure of the intelligence agency budget specifically, and we asked the national intelligence director to come back to us with a study. That is a good balance. The Senator from Alaska would prohibit public disclosures of the bottom line. The public has a right to know at least that. One thing they might conclude from that is that we are not spending enough on intelligence in the war on terrorism as compared to other things we are spending on. We worked hard on this. It is balanced. It respects the right to know. The families of people lost on 9/11 oppose this amendment, as I do. I move to table and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to reconsider the vote. I was on the prevailing side.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3827

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I repeat my objection, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I have had a conversation with the Senator from Alaska. I remove my objection to his calling up the amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I, too, rise to support the amendment the Senator from Kansas offered. It clarifies and strengthens the bill. I thank him for it and I urge its adoption.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, responding to my friend from Virginia, the intention here is to give the national intelligence director budgetary authority over the national intelligence programs. That would not include TIARA. It might include, as has been illuminated in a colloquy between the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Maine, some programs that are currently in JMIP, the Joint Military Intelligence Program. For the sake of reasonable organization, we wanted to take the full budgets of those national intelligence agencies--NSA, National Geospatial, and NRO. But what I want to say is that there is some indication that, for instance, a substantial percentage of one of those agency budgets is currently in JMIP. We expect that they will continue to work for the military and its joint programs. But for the sake of decent organization and clear lines of authority, the judgment made by our committee was to say that all of the budgets of those three national intelligence agencies within the national intelligence program will go on budget under the national intelligence director and to leave it. There is going to be some overlap on what is now JMIP. The bill encourages the Secretary of Defense and the national intelligence director to work out those areas of overlap.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. That was not my intention.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. The Senator is right. He is correct, obviously. It is clearly not the intention of the bill to do that. The fact is the work of the National Geospatial Agency which we are describing here that produces image intelligence which is so critical to the military is also, as the Senator knows, increasingly critical to the Department of Homeland Security, even the Department of State.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. That is why we want to put the budget of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency in the national intelligence program. These are national intelligence assets. Clearly, the call of the military for the services of those assets will be a priority of the agency wherever that budget authority is.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, of course, we do not intend nor do I think we do in any sense cripple the Secretary of Defense. We make a judgment that some of these programs are national intelligence programs. They ought to be in the budget control of the national intelligence director. We enumerate which programs--TIARA, the so- called tactical military programs--off the table. That is with the Secretary of Defense. That provides intelligence to single services or some of the joint programs. This is a difference of opinion. It is true that because we want to give some credibility to this national intelligence director with these national assets as he serves the entire community, including, most of all, the President of the United States, we are recommending those budgets of those three agencies go to the national intelligence director. Then the negotiation begins with the Secretary of Defense. That is a change. I assure the Senator there is no intention in any way to contravene or to diminish the capacity of the Secretary of Defense to fulfill his title 10 statutory requirements. He will work it out with the national intelligence director.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Not quite.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. If I confused the Senator, I apologize.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. The TIARA budget is totally within the control of the Secretary of Defense.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. With the Joint Military Intelligence Program, it is not so clear. That is where there will be, if it is part of a national intelligence program, the budget authority will be with the national intelligence director. But the No. 1 customer is going to be the Department of Defense. We are talking almost as if these are people in different governments. They are going to work this out as they do every day. I will read testimony from General Hayden, the head of the National Security Agency, before the House, August 18. He says: An empowered national intelligence director with direct authority over the national intelligence agencies should not be viewed as diminishing our ability or willingness to fulfill our responsibilities as a combat support agency. General Hayden is a very respected head of one of those agencies-- speaking, in fact, for all of them later on--saying to have a national intelligence director with budget authority is not going to diminish our ability or commitment to the combat support agencies. Then he goes on to talk about how he has forward deployed hundreds of people with our U.S. military command, and there is no way that the creation of a national intelligence director, he says, will alter that commitment to the military. We are trying to create some budgetary clear lines to the national intelligence director, not contravening the title 10 responsibilities of the Secretary of Defense.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I respond to my friend who may be humble but is a very distinguished, nonetheless, expert on these matters, and I appreciate the Senator is so informed about the contents of the Commission report. Interestingly, we communicated with the 9/11 Commission about this particular part of our bill, and they changed their position. Their position developed. I represent that as my best understanding, but I urge the Senator overnight to check with the staff and members of the Commission. I represent that they support our proposal for budgetary authority for the national intelligence director as contained in the bill Senator Collins and I have put before the Senate that the Senator's amendment would alter.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Yes, indeed. I respectfully disagree. I will share something because we have been talking about the National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency. GEN James Clapper spoke before us and gave some very strong views that support to military programs would not be compromised in any way by creation of a strong national intelligence director with budget and other authorities over his agency. So this is a gentleman, a very distinguished general, who is in charge of the exact agency we are talking about, who said to us directly that he was confident the support of his agency to the military would not be compromised in any way by a national intelligence director with budget authority over his agency. It was quite interesting. He described in some detail, as the Senator has spoken to, the direct support the National Geospatial Agency is giving to military operations in the nine combatant commands and increasingly to levels far below the traditional boundaries of those commands to their subordinate units. In fact, as he said, national agencies--this where it is hard to draw real hard lines--national agencies are more and more providing what might on another occasion be called tactical support. When our warfighters need imagery support, General Clapper said they get it from the NGA employees who are often right out there with them on the ground alongside their commanders. What struck me is he said to us that is the way things work now in the real world, and that nothing in the legislation we have put before the Senate, Senator Collins and I, would change that. I think that is a very strong statement from the head of the agency that I know the Senator is concerned about.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. He is now.