John Warner

Mr. WARNER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have worked with the distinguished managers. Like so many things in the course of our legislative process, we have worked out a very large number of items, and they have been accepted. One remains and, in my judgment, the various good-faith proposals simply do not meet the criteria that I feel has to be established. So I have two courses of action. One, which I intend to follow, is to withdraw the amendment. The second, of course, would be to press this on with a vote. Frankly, given the structure of the vote--I don't say this as criticism--it does not allow the time in which to get sufficient information and viewpoints to my colleagues to prevail on such a vote. So I think the better course of action for this Senator is to continue to press my concerns in the course of the conference. At this time, I call up amendment No. 3876.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. WARNER. For a little expression of the explanation of the amendment, I go back to two very important documents. The first is a letter dated September 28, 2004, Statement of Administration Policy. I ask unanimous consent that the following paragraph be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. That paragraph states that: The Administration opposes the Committee's attempt to define in statute programs that should be included in the National Intelligence Program. I believe we have to work this out in a clearer fashion. It is also more clear than what is in the amendment structure today, so I will put that aside and then go to the subject of this amendment. The last paragraph of the September 28 letter reads: The Administration notes that the Committee did not include Section 6, (``Preservation of Authority and Accountability'') of the Administration's proposal; the Administration supports the inclusion of this provision in the Senate bill. That was the basic intent of my amendment; therefore, I will take the opportunity to work on that during the course of conference in the hopes of achieving that goal. I thank the managers for their effort to work on it, and we will hopefully work on it further to achieve this administration goal.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to remind my colleagues that this week is Nuclear Medicine Week. Nuclear Medicine Week is the first week in October every year and is an annual celebration initiated by the Society of Nuclear Medicine. Each year, Nuclear Medicine Week is celebrated internationally at hospitals, clinics, imaging centers, educational institutions, corporations, and more. I am particularly proud to note that the Society of Nuclear Medicine is headquartered in Reston, VA. The Society of Nuclear Medicine is an international scientific and professional organization of more than 15,000 members dedicated to promoting the science, technology and practical applications of nuclear medicine. I commend the society staff and its professional members for their outstanding work in the field of nuclear medicine and for their dedication to caring for people with cancer and other serious and life-threatening illnesses. Some of the more frequently performed nuclear medicine procedures include: bone scans to examine orthopedic injuries, fractures, tumors or unexplained bone pain; heart scans to identify normal or abnormal blood flow to the heart muscle, measure heart function or determine the existence or extent of damage to the heart muscle after a heart attack; breast scans that are used in conjunction with mammograms to detect and locate cancerous tissue in the breasts; liver and gallbladder scans to evaluate liver and gallbladder function; cancer imaging to detect tumors; treatment of thyroid diseases and certain types of cancer; brain imaging to investigate problems within the brain itself or in blood circulation to the brain; and renal imaging in children to examine kidney function. I thank all of those who serve in this very important medical field and join them in celebrating Nuclear Medicine Week.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, seeing the absence of Senator Byrd, I ask the Senator, would you like to proceed to my amendment to take a little time while he comes to the floor?

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I now observe the presence of the Senator from West Virginia. Amendment No. 3877, As Further Modified Madam President, I send to the desk a modification to amendment No. 3877.

Mr. WARNER. This is an amendment which strikes a balance between the respective authorities of the newly to be created NID together with the Secretary of Defense and others as it relates to the recommendations to the President for the appointment of Presidential appointees. It has the support of the distinguished managers on both sides. I worked in cooperation with the White House staff in its preparation, and they have expressed strong concurrence.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I note the long hours and hard work of the two managers. We started on this on Thursday, when I first introduced it, and we worked it again on Friday. Those were productive days. Even though we did not have rollcall votes on Friday, much was accomplished, including the resolution of this amendment. I ask now that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3845

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like at this time to address the Senate and the managers with regard to two amendments. I want to be cooperative in the procedures that they may have in mind for further amendments. If it is convenient, I would like to move forward. If not, I would like to know at what time would be more convenient for the managers. I think we are making considerable progress.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I certainly want to be cooperative. I hope the Senator will take into consideration that I now have the floor.

Mr. WARNER. No. I want to be cooperative. I am perfectly willing to yield the floor for the purpose of a quorum. It is my hope that I will be recognized at such time as the quorum call is to be withdrawn at the discretion of the managers.

Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, the Senator was not on the floor. I had the floor and yielded to the managers for the purpose of going into the cloakroom. So I think I have a right to be recognized when the managers seek recognition, at which time I want to go ahead with my amendments. May I inquire as to the amount of time my distinguished colleagues desire?

Mr. WARNER. I am trying to be accommodating.

Mr. WARNER. If it is agreeable to the distinguished Senator, I will follow him and the Senator from Illinois can follow me.

Mr. WARNER. I will not take an undue period. It is largely in the hands of the managers as to their desire to probe some of the aspects of the amendments. I hope it can be a reasonable period of time, and I hope we will not prolong the Senator's schedule.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague for his usual courtesy.

Mr. WARNER. No, they are not ready to be adopted. Amendment No. 3807

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. I wish to inquire of the manager, is this an appropriate time to move forward?

Mr. WARNER. I send to the desk two amendments which I will address. They are companion amendments, but I felt it was necessary to do it in two different amendments. One is 3874 and one is 3875. Copies are at the desk, but for the convenience of the clerk I will send up additional copies.

Mr. WARNER. I have heard reference made to the fact that this bill leaves intact the manner in which we deal with the TIARA programs and the JMIP; that is, the Joint Military Intelligence Program. I would like to read from page 412 of the 9/11 Commission. The Commission states as follows: The Defense Departments's military intelligence programs-- the joint military intelligence program (JMIP) and the tactical intelligence and related activities program (TIARA)--would remain part of that department's responsibility. My question to the distinguished managers, if they desire to reply, is, Is it their position--and I believe they have so stated, but I wish to give them this opportunity--that the recommendation of the Commission that they remain at the Department of Defense, is it the understanding of Senators in their bill that is now before the Senate that that comports with that objective? May I read it again?

Mr. WARNER. Yes, I thank the Senator. Page 412 of the Commission report: The Defense Department's military intelligence program--the joint military intelligence program (JMIP) and the tactical intelligence and related activities program (TIARA)--would remain part of that department's responsibility.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague. I would like to now go to the bill and specifically draw the managers' attention to pages 6 and 7. The bill reads: The term ``National Intelligence Program''-- And that is what the distinguished manager was addressing-- (A)(i) refers to all national intelligence programs, projects, and activities of the elements of the intelligence community; (ii) includes all programs, projects, and activities (whether or not pertaining to national intelligence) of the National Intelligence Authority, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office . . . Now, therein is the problem that the Senator from Virginia has. What is the meaning of ``whether or not pertaining to national intelligence''? Because the title says this is the definition of national intelligence. (A)(i) basically gives that, and then (ii) seems to extend the definition to include programs that are not now part of the national intelligence program; that is, ``whether or not pertaining.'' I find that of considerable concern. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify that form because having had considerable experience when I worked in the Department and the years that I have been privileged to be on the Armed Services Committee--and I have to be very careful as I speak because these are so highly classified, but I will just give generally a picture of my concern. Right now, the JMIP literally contracts extensively with the Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the NGA, as it is referred to. For example, the Department of Defense puts in the JMIP budget, through the budgeting process, a block of money. It can then go and contract with these several what we call combat agencies, because they have all the assets--the technical people to do the work. So they sign the contract for a program and that program is absolutely essential to the functioning of, in many instances, the TIARA program, but in many instances the JMIP. And it is essential. The JMIP cannot function unless that particular program for which it has contracted with the NGA is fulfilled. As I read this amendment--let's call it program X--program X could be transferred under the language ``whether or not pertaining to National intelligence,'' and it goes into the NGA, and then, frankly, the NID might make a decision that, wait a minute, we have to get a very expensive overhead system and we have to go down into the various budgets of the different combat agencies and scrape up some money. So they come down and they say JMIP says they need the money, but I think we have to prioritize. We are going to take the money and we are going to put it toward the overhead system and it will not be used--for example, this is one of the main functions of the National Geospatial Agency--to make maps. As a matter of fact, when I first came to the Senate it was the old mapping agency. Now it has been combined several times through a number of job descriptions. But that could be lost. Suddenly we are controverting the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, that everything in the TIARA and the JMIP is going to be left untouched. That is the problem I see. I think we have to take a good look at this amendment because my amendment eliminates that language--that is one of the two amendments--it eliminates it in such a way that we redefine that paragraph 1. On page 6, the one I read from, strike so- and-so and put this language in, that is: The term ``National Intelligence Program''-- (ii) includes all programs, projects, and activities of the National Foreign Intelligence Program as of the date of enactment of this Act, including the Central Intelligence Agency-- And then it goes on to read: the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial. . . . All I have done is keep in place the recommendation of the Commission. The very words I have heard the distinguished managers say on the floor a number of times--and I have it back in the previous Records, in which she has represented to this body in the course of the four or five days we have been debating that we are not touching TIARA and we are not touching the JMIP. There is my problem. I believe this fixes it. Amendment No. 3874 The next amendment addresses what the distinguished managers said a few minutes ago. There could come a time where it is the judgment of the NID that some of these programs should no longer be under the jurisdiction of the JMIP, and therefore my other amendment kicks in. It reads as follows: Removal From Current Programs. A program, project, or activity referred to in subsection (a) may be removed from the Joint Military Intelligence Program or the Tactical Intelligence and Related Activities programs only if agreed to by the National Intelligence Director and the Secretary of Defense. So the two of them could make adjustments in the future. But right now, we have a number of programs in JMIP which are being performed by the combat agencies and I think it would not be in our best interests to dislodge those programs now. In the future, if the two heads agree, this is the statutory authority to do it. I feel very strongly about these amendments. So much so I will ask for votes on them if we are not able to--I don't say that in the way of anything other than expressing my sincerity in these amendments, but I hope you could possibly accept them. If you cannot, I feel obligated to ask for the yeas and nays.