[Congressional Record: September 23, 2008 (Senate)]
[Page S9267-S9268]
INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on September 11, the senior Senator from
Missouri, Mr. Bond, came to the floor to introduce a resolution which
suggests that the Appropriations Committee should establish an
Intelligence Subcommittee. While I don't agree that this would be
beneficial to either the Senate or the Nation, the Senator, of course,
has a right to his opinion.
I would inform my colleagues that the leaders of the Appropriations
Committees, Senators Byrd and Cochran, who are responsible for the
division of labor on the committee addressed this matter in a letter
they sent to Senators Reid and McConnell earlier this year.
Rather than debating this matter I would just point out that the
chairman and ranking member make a very compelling case in opposition
to this proposal articulating the significant damage to intelligence
oversight that could result from the proposal offered by Senator Bond.
I would like to highlight one observation from their letter. They point
out that the proposal that the Senator makes would have the effect of
further limiting the number of members who have access to the details
of intelligence programs. It would put all decisionmaking into fewer
hands. They suggest that for intelligence programs in which the general
public, the watchdog groups, and the press must be denied access to the
information, the absolutely worst thing the Congress could do would be
to further constrain oversight and eliminate the benefits that come
from having more individuals share responsibility in the decisionmaking
process. I share their view that the proposal made by the Senator from
Missouri would not improve congressional oversight of intelligence.
My colleague from Missouri spoke eloquently and passionately about
the tragedy of 9/11 and the impact it had on him and this institution.
On a personal note, I would like to thank him for the kind words he
expressed about me and my role as chairman of the Defense Subcommittee.
Senator Bond and I have served together on the Appropriations Committee
since he joined us in 1991. He has served the committee in a number of
key areas including on our Defense Subcommittee, but most notably as
chairman of the former VA-HUD Subcommittee and currently as the ranking
member of the Transportation-HUD Subcommittee. On the Appropriations
Committee we have come to count on him for his expertise and sound
judgment in these areas. As such, I must say I was surprised by some of
the characterizations he made regarding action on classified programs.
Senator Bond noted that billions of dollars has been spent on
technology programs which, as he described, ``never get off the
ground.'' I concur with this description and share his concern. He
rightly blamed executive branch officials for many failures. But in so
doing he failed to note that the Congress, including the Intelligence
Committee, reviewed these programs for several years and authorized
funding for them.
He discussed a program that he referred to as a ``silver bullet.'' If
I am right in assuming which program that is, I would point out that
the Intelligence Committees, Appropriations Committees, and the
intelligence community all originally supported the program. While the
Senate Intelligence Committee soured on the program a few years ago, it
remained supported by the House oversight committees, the Senate
Appropriations Committee, the Director of National Intelligence, the
Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence,
and the Chairman of the Strategic Command. But, yes, it was expensive.
When a new DNI, new Secretary, and
[[Page S9268]]
new Under Secretary assumed their posts, they determined that it simply
wasn't affordable.
The Senator from Missouri postulates that it didn't work. Since it
was not completed, we will never really know, but no one involved in
the program in DoD and the intelligence community ever contended it
wouldn't work. It was cancelled because the executive branch determined
it wasn't worth the continued investment. By cancelling the program as
urged by the Intelligence Committee, the Government did, to use the
Senator's word, ``waste'' billions of dollars. But this is not the only
example of problems in this community.
One notable program that was finally killed by the administration in
the past few years on which significantly more funding had been spent
was strongly supported by the Intelligence Committee from the program's
inception. The committee had even suggested that this program could
partially serve as an alternative to the program referred to above. It
had been behind schedule and overbudget for years, but it continued to
be supported by the executive branch and the Congress with the hope
that it could be saved. Eventually, the administration realized that
technically it could not be made to work, and it was cancelled.
For the Senator to claim that it is the appropriations process which
is so disconnected from the workings of the Intelligence Committee that
billions of dollars come to naught puts the blame squarely on our
committee for the failures which have occurred. This is not only
unfair, but it is completely inaccurate.
Mr. President, while the Senator and I may disagree on the relative
merits of programs, and while I am not particularly proud of the
Government's record in recent years, the responsibility for wasting of
billions of dollars is shared by all of us, the executive branch, the
Appropriations Committees, and the Intelligence Committees.
The Senator attempted to link these past failures to a particular
program which he advocates which was not funded by the Appropriations
Committee this year. I would point out that the administration did not
request funding for the program and that the Director of National
Intelligence opposes funding the program. The funding sought by Senator
Bond was not authorized by the House oversight committee. It was not
recommended by the Intelligence oversight panel of the House
Appropriations Committee.
Moreover, I would disagree with his characterization of the action by
the Defense Subcommittee on this subject. We recognize that several
members of the Intelligence Committee feel this would be a worthwhile
program. Senators Stevens, Cochran, and I considered the actions by the
Intelligence Committee on this and many other programs very carefully.
To address the concerns of the Intelligence Committee, we reallocated a
substantial sum of money from other programs and provided an amount
with which the intelligence community could fully fund the program that
Senator Bond advocates. However, we didn't mandate that outcome. There
is disagreement within the community about the proper approach which
should be taken. In recognition that a new administration will be
taking office, we requested that the program supported by Senator Bond
be analyzed along with those of other contractors and the best option
or options be selected next year.
We felt we met the Senator halfway. We recommended sufficient funding
which could be used for this program even though it was funded by
neither the other intelligence oversight committees nor the
intelligence community.
We are familiar with the program in question. We believe it may have
merit. We have confidence in individuals associated with the program,
but we also are aware of those with great technical expertise who argue
that the program will not work for technical reasons which I cannot
discuss in unclassified session. We believed locking the intelligence
community into another multibillion-dollar sole source contract when
there are legitimate questions about its potential is probably a
mistake. To imply that this program has broad-based support and that it
is the Appropriations Committee which is out of step is categorically
inaccurate.
It is somewhat ironic that the Senator from Missouri is urging
support for responding to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
while at the same time he is telling the Senate to ignore the judgment
of the Director of National Intelligence who was established and
empowered to make such decisions as the principal recommendation of the
9/11 Commission.
Finally, I would note that the Senator claimed that the root problem
is that the Appropriations Committee simply does not have enough staff
to pay adequate attention to intelligence.
The Defense Subcommittee has a small staff and the Intelligence
Committee staff is fairly large. But I would point out that the
Intelligence Committee has one professional staff member on the
majority staff who reviews the budget for the National Reconnaissance
Office; so do we. The Intelligence Committee has one professional staff
member on the majority staff who reviews the budget for the National
Security Agency; so do we. Moreover, the staff which the Defense
Subcommittee devotes to overseeing the intelligence budget has far
greater experience in reviewing budgets than does the staff of the
Intelligence Committee for such programs. I would also point out that
several other subcommittees on the Appropriations Committee have
jurisdiction over portions of the intelligence budget. To single out
the Defense Subcommittee misses one of the key points of the
appropriations process: that many individuals have oversight over these
matters.
I don't want to stir up passions on this issue any more than I may
already have. I have the greatest respect for the workings of the
Intelligence Committee. Many of my younger colleagues may not be aware
that I served as the first chairman of the Intelligence Committee. I am
proud of my service on that committee. I believe the work that Senators
Rockefeller and Bond do is extremely important to the Senate. I believe
they have a very competent staff. Since I resumed the chairmanship of
the Defense Subcommittee last year, I have directed my staff to work
closely with the staff of the Intelligence Committee to ensure that we
have the benefit of their expertise and to minimize any disagreements
between our two panels, and they have done so. Our staffs attend many
briefings together. Members of our staffs have traveled together to
review programs. I believe we have established a good relationship that
strengthens Senate oversight.
For example, there are literally thousands of line items in the
intelligence budget. Our staffs spend countless hours discussing items
which one committee or the other believes should be adjusted. We
carefully review the classified annex of the Intelligence Committee and
provide recommendations to the Appropriations Committee which are very
close to those of the Intelligence Committee. This year we had two
issues out of hundreds of items under review on which we disagreed. On
one we were able to reach an agreement easily. The other has been
described in vague terms above.
Last year, Chairmen Byrd and Rockefeller, Ranking Members Cochran and
Stevens, and I signed a significant memorandum of agreement between our
two committees pledging greater cooperation. Senator Bond chose not to
be party to that agreement. Since that time the signers and their
staffs have tried to live up to the letter and the spirit of that pact.
I believe we have been generally successful and the Senate is better
served that two separate panels are continuing to review the
intelligence budget but working together and generally resolving our
differences amicably.
It is rare for me to openly disagree with another Member. I want to
assure all my colleagues that I do not mean anything personally by my
statements today. However, the assertions and implications that were
levied against the Appropriations Committee earlier this month were
simply untrue. At times all of us can become passionate on matters
which we care about. Perhaps that explains why such inaccuracies were
offered as facts. Regardless of the reason, I felt it was my duty to
come to the floor today and correct the record.
____________________
