John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Without diminishing in any way that very encouraging sentence, if you go on to read the totality of this communication, there are expressly in here some reservations, but I will not get into that at this point in time. I want to go back to these words, ``full, effective, and meaningful budget authorities.'' We just had a debate on the Specter amendment, which I believe, with no disrespect to my good friend and colleague, is an extreme viewpoint on this, and I am hopeful the Senate will not adopt it, but we do come back to this pivotal question, and tomorrow I hope to bring forth some amendments. Now that I see the expressed language and the Senator assured me her bill tracks this, I have to have some clarification--at least I shall seek clarification--of what is the remaining role of the Secretary of Defense with regard to those portions; namely, these three combat agencies, together with DIA, what is the residual area of collaboration, jointness, in the preparation of the budget--preparation is part 1--and then the execution of the budget after it goes through the authorization and appropriations process and begins to come back to the several departments and agencies. So let's talk about what the Senator believes this language--which is consistent, as she says, with the language in the bill--I presume the Senator's language would not be modified or changed by this--what is left to the Secretary of Defense in regard to the budget authority?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I really think that is an important representation the Senator has made, but I do not read in this language of the communication from the White House the distinction that she draws between tactical and national. Can I refer the Senator again to this language?

Mr. WARNER. I draw the attention of the distinguished managers to the words ``the Administration will oppose any amendments that would weaken the full budget authority. . . .'' It is the word ``full.''

Mr. WARNER. To me ``full'' is the whole basket. It could be interpreted that way.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I acknowledge that, the JMIP and the TIARA in the language sent up. But it seems to me the writer of this could have been somewhat more explicit in the communication because this is an important communication to guide Senators desiring to establish their voting pattern in connection with the Senator's bill.

Mr. WARNER. I think I pressed the point far enough and I think the Senator from Maine has been very courteous in her responses. I just want to bring to the attention of colleagues, when this says ``full,'' it is your understanding it did not include the JMIP, the TIARA, and those programs; is that correct?

Mr. WARNER. I am privileged to be in this colloquy with my friends. I would like to have the assurance of the ranking member of the committee that he concurs in the statements just made by our distinguished Chair.

Mr. WARNER. The question is the language sent up by the administration did have a breakout of the budget authority as relates to certain parts of the overall programs performed by these combat agencies. I ask our distinguished manager of the bill whether this language in the communication today which said the administration opposed any amendments, because I proposed to have an amendment tomorrow--it may be opposed by the administration, but I want to make sure that the phrase ``full budget authorities'' is not amending what they sent up by way of language.

Mr. WARNER. Well, time will tell. I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the Record a copy of the administration--I think the Senator referred to it as a bill although it was never introduced--language they sent up which made a clear reference and distinction to what budget authority was given to the NID and what residual remains in the Secretary of Defense. Am I correct on that?

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. It was a communication from the administration----

Mr. WARNER. I guess to the managers of the bill or the committee. Nevertheless, it is a document expressing the intentions, and the distinguished chairman has clearly indicated that her bill tracks that.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. I asked that if a construction of this language we received today is full budget authority, it could lead someone to the conclusion that everything was transferred.

Mr. WARNER. Good. And if they had inserted that in there, it would have been clearer, I hasten to add. We are not going to debate this further. In fairness, having raised this question, I think the Senator has brought considerable clarification. It may be the administration may be more forthcoming about what they precisely meant by the use of full budget authority in the use of this communication, but let me proceed in my questioning with regard to the residual authority of the Secretary of Defense over those budgets in the combat agencies, and I would like to add DIA, which is also a combat agency. As the Senator says in her bill, those sections which are tactical are in the discretion of the Secretary in the preparation of the budget, and he would collaborate with the NID in preparing those sections. Now, on the national intelligence collection, I think the chairman agrees with me that the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines utilize that in carrying out their tactical missions, although it classifies the NRO and the gathering in space as the national program. Am I correct? It does feed into the tactical portion?

Mr. WARNER. So, therefore, should not the Secretary of Defense have a voice--and I would like to see how we can describe that voice--in the compilation of that budget for the national program which in part supports the efforts of the forces in the tactical missions?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is very helpful. I wonder if the Senator's staff would provide for the Record at this point an insertion of those references in the bill which supports the Senator's very important representation to the Senate just now, that the Senator feels he has the consultation role and such other roles as to assure the Secretary of Defense that he has a voice in the preparation of the budget.

Mr. WARNER. I just wanted to have the pages annotated. I think my colleague witnessed several colleagues today saying it would be helpful if we could get a clearer understanding of some things, and I think the Record today could be of help to those who want to see in the Senator's bill precisely those sections which underpin the Senator's important representation. I ask if the Senator might consider putting that into the Record.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I was not challenging the language. I was simply trying to get a reference. The Senator provided it, and I thank the chairman. If I could transition to the second part of this, the budget is prepared and approved by the President. It is then acted upon by the Congress by authorization and appropriation and it goes to the NID. Am I correct?

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. Right.

Mr. WARNER. Right.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the chairman. That portion of the budget then goes back to be administered by the Secretary of Defense; is that clear?

Mr. WARNER. That nonnational portion.

Mr. WARNER. It goes back to the Secretary of Defense. I thank the distinguished chairman on that point. I see on the floor my distinguished colleague, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. I wondered, since he followed this colloquy and I know he has worked very hard in this area with the Senator from Virginia, have some of his concerns which he has expressed to me been touched on in this colloquy?