John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, replying to my distinguished colleague, let's use the example of maps. They are absolutely essential to the troops. They can't operate without maps. The only existing entity of the Federal Government that can make maps is the NGA. Right now, the JMIP, which is the Joint Military Intelligence Program, is acting on behalf of all the services--the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. They all desperately need maps. They have this contract which they pay for out of this budget to have the maps made. But the way your bill is drawn, it seems to me that they could stop making the maps for the military because they think that the dollars are better needed for overhead systems. There sits the Secretary almost powerless unless he runs right up to the President and says: Wait a minute. And you can't have him going to the President on all of the dozens of contracts that the JMIP has with the various contract agencies. I ask a question. The 9/11 Commission explicitly said don't do this. I thought I understood the manager to say: Well, we are not doing it. I have about four or five references where on the floor the manager said we are not touching TIARA or JMIP; those programs remain under the budget of the Secretary of Defense. With no intention to do other than what is right, we have a vague situation that we cannot let remain and jeopardize the maps. It is the clearest thing I know that is understandable by everybody in this Chamber--the need for those maps for our soldiers, our naval personnel on the high seas, those flying the aircraft. You cannot limit the ability of the Secretary of Defense to adequately provide those maps. I say to my distinguished colleague, my colleague has a statute which puts in question the ability to control the very thing my colleague said time and time again she was not going to touch.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in response to my colleague, I am not touching the satellites. I agree. Everything she said is absolutely correct. We are not touching the satellites. But we are concerned about things such as the mundane maps which are about 80 percent used by the tactical forces, maybe 20 percent distributed elsewhere in the Government for other purposes. But that is the heart and soul of tactical intelligence. It is desperately needed. You simply have to let those moneys that the Secretary of Defense allocates by contract to the NGA to do the maps be untouched. They cannot be seized in a sweep-up or a reprioritization. We just had an amendment which was rejected about the reprogramming authority. You have extensive reprogramming authority. But time and time again, I have heard the Senator from Connecticut say we are not going to touch TIARA, we are not going to touch the JMIP. Yet, if I could draw the attention of my colleague from Connecticut to page 6 of the bill, the language is very clear. It says: The term ``national intelligence program'' includes all programs, projects and activities whether or not pertaining to national intelligence. So you are going beyond national intelligence. You are grabbing the responsibilities of the TIARA Program and the JMIP. There is the language.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. He precisely came to my point.

Mr. WARNER. Roughly about 30 percent of the NGA budget is derivative of the JMIP budget. One of the pending amendments of the Senator has this provision in it. He said the programs may be moved. My language does that. It says: A program, project, or activity referred to in subsection (a) may be removed from the JMIP or the tactical intelligence but only if agreed to by the national intelligence director and the Secretary of Defense. So they have the concurrence of the two principals, and then move it but leave in place now those programs such that the budgets remain until they make a joint decision to move them. I used the example of maps. You cannot cut off the flow of maps back to the troops, the sailors, and the airmen. Yet those maps are made by the NGA.

Mr. WARNER. I concur.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for that reassurance. But the language now transfers that program, if we look at the parenthetical on page 6, and includes all programs, projects, and activities, whether pertaining to national intelligence or not, which means you grabbed it all and moved it. That may be to the advantage of our national intelligence system, our tactical system, some date in the future, but do not do it now until we have had some measure of experience. The Senator from Virginia has provided for the removal of those programs with the concurrence of the two principals. You cannot take away from the Secretary of Defense. He is, under title 10, required to provide for the men and women of the Armed Forces their basic needs. Nothing is more basic than the simple maps, and 80 percent of that cost of producing those maps comes out of JMIP. I plead with the Senator, leave it for the moment. As we go through the progression and implementation of this, it seems to me the NID and Department of Defense can work it out if for some reason there is concurrence of viewpoints. This is crippling the Secretary of Defense in fulfilling his missions under title 10 where he is required by law, enacted by this Senate over a period of many years, to keep those troops supplied with what they need.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I understood my colleague, all the TIARA and JMIP budgets are off the table. Did the Senator just say that?

Mr. WARNER. It is the ``not quite.''

Mr. WARNER. You did not confuse this old fox; he is listening. But the others may not be able to follow these nuances.

Mr. WARNER. Splendid. Leave it there.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, would the Senator look at page 412 of the 9/11 Report, please. Let me read it: The Defense Department's military intelligence programs-- the joint military intelligence program (JMIP) and the tactical and related activities program (TIARA)--would remain part of that department's responsibility. In testimony before your committee, the 9/11 Commissioners have repeatedly stated that some portions, as the Senator said, of JMIP, might ultimately need to be moved to the national intelligence program but only after a thorough review. The humble Senator from Virginia is just trying to keep the programs in place until as that wise old Commission said, ``ultimately'' you may review them and consider moving them.

Mr. WARNER. I bring to the attention of the managers something they are already aware of, but I think it is important it be incorporated in the debate. I draw the Senators' attention to the September 28, 2004, Statement of Administration Policy, which is in the Record in many places, the guidance that was sent to you and your distinguished colleague, the chairman, Senator Collins. It says in the fourth paragraph: The administration opposes the Committee's attempt to define in statute the programs that should be included in the National Intelligence Program; the Administration believes that further review is required. The Administration also believes that the Committee's bill provisions relating to the NID's role in the acquisition in major systems needs further study. There is a clear statement of policy by the White House on the precise point that is in these two amendments. I say to my colleague, if the Senator has a reply to this, I am happy to hear it; otherwise, I ask for the yeas and nays and then I will fight on.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might reply, I was privileged to know General Clapper very well. I think you will find he was not with the NGA, but he was Director of the DIA, when he used to come before the Armed Services Committee. He is with the NGA now.

Mr. WARNER. I just point out to you, I will have to go back and look at his testimony, but I know he fully understands the need to keep intact the Secretary of Defense's absolute authority to control those matters which are essential to the fulfillment of his title 10 responsibilities. I say to you most respectfully, this, in my judgment, is sufficiently vague as to put that in jeopardy. But I have taken generously of the time of the managers, so at this time I ask for the yeas and nays on both amendments that are pending.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will do it singularly if there is a technical problem. Why don't I do it singularly. First I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 3875.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer. I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 3874.

Mr. WARNER. Fine. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be laid aside.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3875 and ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer and thank the managers of the bill.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank the managers of the bill. Before I commence, I wonder if I might comment on the presentation of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, which I was privileged, as many others were, to listen to very carefully. It was prepared in his usual very thorough style, magnificently delivered. I am going to take a close look at it. I thank the Senator for his contribution to this effort.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, not until I make the following observation: First, I thank the Senator for his comments. They are undeserved but I appreciate them. I remember how many times on this floor the Senator has recounted the importance of his wife's role in his career, but the one I always remember--I have only been here a mere 26 years as compared to my senior colleague--was during my first couple of years, and we were going well into the night. The Senator paused to say how he used to go to night law school, and although he was a Member of Congress and burdened with the duties, she would come with a little lunch bag with a carton of milk and a sandwich to tide him over until he left the Chamber, whether it was the House or the Senate, and go to night law school to get his degree. I always remembered that. Give her my warmest regards.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank the distinguished managers of this bill. I rise now for the purpose of sending an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. I note that Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye are cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, this amendment is for the purpose of bringing into realignment what I believe is the proper balance of the authorities of the new NID together with the respective Cabinet officers, each of whom has some portion of intelligence responsibilities remaining, as well as the Director of the FBI. I will read the amendment briefly so that colleagues can follow exactly what I am trying to do. The amendment says: Concurrence of NID in certain appointments recommended by Secretary of Defense. (1) In the event of a vacancy and a position referred to in paragraph (2), the Secretary of Defense shall obtain the concurrence of the National Intelligence Director before recommending to the President an individual for nomination to fill such vacancy. If the Director does not concur in the recommendation, the Secretary may make the recommendation to the President without the concurrence of the Director, but shall include in the recommendation a statement that the Director does not concur in the recommendation. It is just to bring into balance the fact that according to my research, each of the other departments and agencies that have an intelligence role get to recommend, with the concurrence of the Cabinet officer or the head of the FBI. This is the one instance with regard to these combat agencies where it should be brought in alignment with the other methodology and procedures adopted for these important personnel selections. I draw the attention of the managers to section 117(b) of the bill before us. It gives the national intelligence director responsibility and authority to recommend appointments for several agencies that hopefully will continue to be retained within the Department of Defense: The National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. I say hopefully because we have thus far withstood the very significant amendment by the distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, coauthored by the distinguished colleague from Kansas, Mr. Roberts, and others. The Senate addressed that and by an overwhelming majority literally rejected the taking of these three combat agencies and putting them under the direct jurisdiction of the NID. Now, that is a concept that was hard fought, decided, and as a consequence, hopefully it will remain as it is in the managers' bill. The purpose of the amendment was to dislodge the managers' section with regard to that. That was rejected by the Senate very resoundingly. I believe, therefore, it is appropriate at this time to bring into alignment with the other departments and agencies the authority for the Secretary of Defense over these three entities which remain in his department to make the recommendation to the President with the concurrence of the NID, and in those instances where there is nonconcurrence the President then would have the benefit of that diversity of viewpoints. That is the purpose of this amendment. We must remind ourselves that these are combat support agencies in the Department of Defense. Under the bill, as of this moment, the agencies remain under the authority of the Secretary of Defense. Then the interesting aspect of this, which is important to my amendment is that in the case of the NSA, this is normally a military promotion from two stars to three stars to take on this important position of the Director of NSA, and that Director of NSA also serves in the position of Deputy Commander U.S. Strategic Command for Information, Operations, Planning and Integration, a very critical warfighting post. Consequently, these are matters that the Secretary of Defense, who is accountable to the President and who has direct line authority from the President to the SECDEF to the combat commanders, that are important to maintain. In the case of the NRO, this is a civilian appointment, to direct the activities of the National Reconnaissance Office but is an appointment as the Under Secretary of the Air Force. He is dual hatted, again, an individual who serves not only in the important post of the intelligence NRO but as an Under Secretary of the Air Force in the Department of Defense. It is imperative that the Secretary of Defense have the authority to make the recommendation together with the concurrence of the NID. In the case of the NGA, this can be a military appointment similar to the NSA. One primary function of the NGA is to meet the mapping needs of our military forces. I repeat, the military forces are highly dependent upon this agency for the tactical maps that are needed wherever they are in the world today facing the challenges and the threats to our country. These three appointments, I say most respectfully to the managers, I feel ever so strongly should be initiated by the Secretary of Defense with a recommendation, and then the statute, if my amendment is adopted, will give the concurrence of the NID as an essential part of the process. Current law provides for the Secretary of Defense to recommend appointment of these individuals with the concurrence of the DCI. We have clear evidence for many years this system has worked and worked well. There are examples where the DCI nonconcurred and the Secretary revised the nomination in a manner consistent with gaining the concurrence of the Director of the CIA. The President has said he does not want anything we do in the area of intelligence reform to blur the lines of authority, responsibility, and accountability between him and the heads of the departments. I feel my amendment will meet that criterion as set forth by the President. I strongly urge my colleagues to examine the current provision, examine the practice with respect to other departments and agencies in the Government, and hopefully I will gain the support of the managers as well as of my colleagues and that this amendment will be adopted. I yield the floor.