[Page: S15569]
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of the Senator from Ohio. The overall, top line amount appropriated for intelligence should be made public because it is constitutionally mandated, because there is no longer a security reason for keeping the figure secret, and because it is time for intelligence to stand on its own feet and compete openly on its own merits with other programs.
The Constitution directs in article 1, section 9, that `no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.' During the cold war we set up an artifice to exempt intelligence from this requirement. We kept the intelligence budget number secret and concealed most of its programs in the Defense budget. We did this for good reason: we had in Moscow an adversary with a large intelligence service that would have taken this figure, had it been available to them, to measure America's effort. So we kept it from them, and rightfully so, even if in the process we kept it from our people as well. But today we have no such adversary. If our present antagonists, countries like Libya, Iran, Iraq, had any idea how much we spent on intelligence, they would be dismayed to learn that we spend far more on intelligence than they do on their whole governments. But they would learn nothing, in my view, that they could use against us.
I noted that it is time for intelligence to stand on its own feet, and I say that for several reasons. First, if intelligence is the valuable commodity that I contend it is in this very uncertain world, a world of new threats but from which the old nuclear threat has not completely faded, if it is the force multiplier that our military commanders say it is, than it ought to be amply funded. If it is tied to Defense with a continuation of the current policy of hiding the intelligence budget inside the Defense budget, then it is at risk of declining along with Defense. Absent new military threats, I believe we all agree that the Defense budget will continue to drop, perhaps steeply. A concurrent drop in the intelligence budget would not be appropriate. That is why I favor letting intelligence compete freely as a separate program. To do that, you have to announce the top-line intelligence budget figure.
Don't misunderstand me. Intelligence and Defense will always be functionally linked. As long a military commanders are the top priority customers for intelligence--and they always will be--the Defense Department should have an active role in managing intelligence programs and the Armed Services Committee should continue to take the intelligence authorization bill on sequential referral. But the top-line figure should be made public.
There's another reason, beyond the decline of the old threat and the shrinking Defense budget, for making the intelligence figure public. This is an age of increasingly open government. Don't take my word for it.
Look at the CIA. They began declassifying documents under the last DCI, Bob Gates, and are continuing to do so under Jim Woolsey. We all recall the recent release of previously classified documents on the assassination of President Kennedy. A great many other documents have been declassified and released as well.
The intelligence community is working with the scientific community to provide scientifically useful data on such things as whale migration and climate change, data collected by systems designed to pinpoint enemy submarines.
The CIA is seeking more of its information from open source material. It has even joined the Internet computer network, which means that virtually anyone can go online with them.
A Presidential panel is charting a whole new system of Government information security which will bring forth a more open system that will limit secrecy.
Intelligence topics like imagery and cryptology are now discussed in the public media, with surprising accuracy.
The Intelligence Committees of the House and Senate have an increasing number of open hearings.
Let's face it. Openness is the order of the day, and unless a threat as formidable and as lethal as the old Soviet Union comes along, our society and Government will steadily become more open. Our task is to make intelligence more useful to more Americans, not hoard it. I know that Bill Clinton understands this--his support for openness in Government is one of the driving factors behind this trend. That's why I can't believe that he personally opposes this amendment.
I also can't believe that stating the top-line intelligence figure would hurt the intelligence community. I know from my service on the Intelligence Committee that our extraordinarily capable intelligence structure is both priceless and a bargain. It can compete successfully with other Government programs.
Finally, I reject the argument that stating the top-line figure will lead to an additional peeling of the onion, a steady revelation of more secrets. This won't happen if we do it right: One way would be to simply require the President to state two figures when he submits the annual budget; the amount appropriated for the last fiscal year, and the amount the President requests be appropriated for the next fiscal year. In that way there would be no opportunity to compare the bills of different committees or to compare outlay versus budget authority. This would be one way to avoid the slippery slope, and I am sure there are others, which the Senator from Ohio's amendment leaves the President free to suggest.
The power to change is the power to keep our democracy vibrant and young. The budget secrecy that was necessary during the cold war is today at best disfunctional. We can do better in the sunshine. Both our intelligence community and our democracy will be healthier for it. I urge adoption of the amendment.
[Page: S15570]
Mr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I wish to say a concluding word to my colleagues.
In 1991, the Senate passed a provision to require disclosure of the budget total--to require it. That provision was watered down in conference, but the Senate had approved requiring disclosure.
This proposal does not require it. It is just a sense-of-Congress resolution as to our policy, that it should be disclosed. We enacted the same sense-of-Congress language in the 1991 conference report and again in 1992. All we are saying today is, pass again something that is really much less than that which the Senate passed in 1991.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, is all time yielded back?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Has the Senator from Ohio yielded back all time?
Mr. METZENBAUM. I yield it back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] to table the amendment of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Metzenbaum]. The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:
So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1157) was rejected.
Mr. DeCONCINI. I urge the adoption of the amendment of the Senator from Ohio.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate? If there is no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the Metzenbaum amendment.
Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MITCHELL. I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I object. I object two times.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The bill clerk continued the call of the roll.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. What is the pending matter?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Metzenbaum].
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:
So the amendment (No. 1157) was agreed to.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DeCONCINI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the bill?
Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has 3 minutes, 2 seconds. The Senator from Virginia has 14 minutes 7 seconds.
Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senate for its indulgence in having a second vote on this very important issue. If the Senate feels so strongly that it wants to pass a sense-of-the-Senate, I wish it would have the courage to step up and pass the law then.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the bill for the third time.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Intelligence Committee is discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2330, and the Senate will proceed to the immediate consideration of the bill.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2330) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1994 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all after the enacting clause is stricken and the text of S. 1224 is inserted in lieu thereof.
The clerk will read the bill for the third time.
The bill (H.R. 2330) was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is not a sufficient second.
Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
[Page: S15571]
Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, is this to be done by voice vote, in which case or Senator from Virginia has no objection?
Mr. DeCONCINI. The Senator is correct.
Mr. WARNER. The request for yeas and nays has been withdrawn?
Mr. DeCONCINI. It was never formulated or consummated.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this is to be done by voice vote?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If no one requests the yeas and nays, yes.
The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the bill pass?
So the bill (H.R. 2330) was passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair appoint conferees, and they are before the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists on its amendments, requests a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes, and the Chair is authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
The Chair appoints the following conferees.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
From the Select Committee on Intelligence: Mr. DeConcini, Mr. Warner, Mr. Metzenbaum, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Graham, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Johnston, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Danforth, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Lugar, and Mr. Wallop.
From the Committee on Armed Services: Mr. Nunn and Mr. Thurmond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, S. 1301 is indefinitely postponed.
The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, that finishes the authorization.
I thank my distinguished vice chairman for his counsel and advice. I know he feels very strongly about this subject matter. We spent a good part of the afternoon, and I respect his position on this. I hope we can work in the future to maybe find a little better way to handle it. I pledge to him to continue to work with him.
I thank the dedicated staff on both the majority and minority side for their work in putting this bill together.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished chairman, colleague, and friend. I join him in commending our staff. We have an excellent staff. We try as best we can to perform in a bipartisan manner such important issues to this Nation as its intelligence.
I yield the floor.
END