[Congressional Record: September 15, 2008 (Senate)]
[Page S8506-S8513]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 3001, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 3001) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2009 for military activities of
[[Page S8507]]
the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for
defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes.
[...]
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I begin by commending the chairman and the
ranking member on working very hard on an extremely important bill. I
rise in my position as the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee
to ask consent that we be able to add an amendment which deals with the
intelligence portion of the Defense authorization and appropriations
bills that I feel must be addressed.
I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments and call
up amendment No. 5387.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. LEVIN. I object, Mr. President.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am not surprised. I am disappointed that
my effort to simply call up one of seven amendments I filed to the
Defense authorization bill is being denied. Our very distinguished,
articulate majority leader has said it is not his fault if people can't
get votes. I should note that he has filled up the tree, a procedural
move that denies a vote on any nonmajority leader-approved amendment.
I now will explain why I think these provisions are vitally
important. These are measures that have been dealt with and approved by
this body and the other body in some instances, by this body in some
instances, and by the Intelligence Committee in other times.
The amendment I tried to call up, as well as the other six I filed,
is important not only for the intelligence community but for
congressional oversight as we continue to fight this war on terror.
Unfortunately, for reasons that make no sense to me, I have been
informed there is a desire not to entertain any amendments relating to
the intelligence community on the bill. We have seen from the 9/11
Commission and most other observers of the legislative process that the
one area of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, on a bipartisan basis,
that has not been adopted has been to combine the intelligence
authorization and appropriations process. I am here today to offer some
amendments that would effect that coordination.
I join with my other colleagues who have indicated they refuse to
acquiesce in a UC agreement until such time as we can work out a
reasonable accommodation. I want to see this bill passed. Obviously, it
is critically important, but so is stopping the waste of billions of
dollars and improving the operations of the intelligence community. It
is a mistake, and I cannot agree to a UC agreement until we have had
some resolution of these questions.
It is certainly no surprise to the occupant of the chair, who is a
valued member of both the Defense authorization committee and the
Intelligence Committee, that the intelligence community has been
without essential oversight as ordinarily provided in the authorization
process.
Our efforts in the Intelligence Committee to have a bill signed into
law last year were derailed by partisan provisions that ultimately
resulted in a Presidential veto. The same poison pills were put into
this year's intelligence authorization bill. So it will not move
forward. As vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I believe it
is time to take partisan games out of the intelligence oversight. I
believe it is high time to return to congressional oversight of
intelligence activities by the executive branch.
It is ironic that some of my colleagues have been so vocal, and at
times biting, in their criticism of the administration's intelligence
spending programs. Yet when we now have the opportunity to seek
congressional oversight over them, they seek to deny us the opportunity
to do so. It is almost as if some would rather have a reason to
criticize the system rather than the opportunity to fix it.
I am here today to ask for the opportunity to begin to fix it. So I
filed these amendments--good, sound provisions that have good
bipartisan support and I believe will improve not only our oversight
but the work of the Intelligence Committee.
Each one of these amendments was included in the Intelligence
Committee's 2009 authorization bill, and almost all were part of the
2008 bill. So there are no surprises here.
First among them is amendment No. 5387 that authorizes funds for the
intelligence community's budget. How much more fundamental can we get?
That sets out the parameters for the intelligence community, just as
the overall Armed Services Committee bill sets out parameters for
appropriations by the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee on defense
issues.
The first amendment combines five sections from the Intelligence
Committee's 2009 authorization act and authorizes different types of
funding for the intelligence community--the National Intelligence
Program funds, funding of the intelligence community management
account, and funding the CIA's disability and retirement accounts.
[[Page S8508]]
These are all basic budgetary authorizations on which I hope we can
agree. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.
My remaining amendments include a number of what I can call, I
believe without challenge, ``good government'' provisions. These
provisions will ensure that the Director of National Intelligence has
the authority he needs to manage the intelligence community and will
ensure that American taxpayers are actually getting the best bang for
their buck and not wasting billions and billions of dollars, which I
have addressed on the floor previously.
The next amendment is No. 5388. What is this good government
amendment? This amendment is aimed at discouraging cost overruns on
intelligence satellites and other expensive intelligence programs and
is modeled after the longstanding Nunn-McCurdy provisions that apply to
Department of Defense major acquisitions.
Last week I stated on the floor that billions and billions and
billions--I won't tell you how many because it is classified--of
dollars have been wasted on overhead programs because they were not
effectively managed.
The next amendment, No. 5389, requires the DNI to conduct
vulnerability assessments of our major systems used by the intelligence
community. This provision has been in the past two intelligence
authorization bills. It requires the DNI to conduct initial and
subsequent periodic vulnerability assessments of each intelligence
community major system. These assessments should identify system
vulnerabilities and exploitation potentials and should make
recommendations for reducing risks.
We all know there are those who seek to do us ill who have the
ability to compromise many of our programs. Those of us who are
familiar with it know how many ways this can happen. I am not going to
give anybody any ideas by telling them how to do it. Too many people
already know. If we have learned anything during this election cycle,
it is that the American people are tired of having their money wasted.
They are demanding better spending habits and better accountability
from their Government, which brings me to my next amendment,
accountability reviews by the Director of National
Intelligence. Amendment No. 5390 allows the DNI to conduct
accountability reviews of elements of the intelligence community or
personnel of such element in relation to a significant failure or
deficiency within the intelligence community.
My amendment, agreed to by the Intelligence Committee, would
strengthen the DNI's authority and influence in this area, as well as
congressional oversight. This amendment confirms the DNI's ability to
recommend disciplinary action against persons within the Office of the
DNI who have failed to measure up to expectations and are under his
jurisdiction. I believe this is a reasonable place to start.
The next one is a future-year budget plan, amendment No. 5391. I
think it is reasonable for Congress and our intelligence community to
stop wasting billions of dollars on intelligence programs that prove
too costly to complete. How does this happen? One reason is that we
have never required the intelligence community to show us the full cost
of these expensive programs in the budget. My fifth amendment would
ensure that this would not happen again.
Now, I will tell the occupant of the chair and my fellow Intelligence
Committee member, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, as well as
the chairman of the committee who has staff who sits in as frequently
as he can on our Intelligence Committee oversight hearings, that there
are many wonderful programs that come to us with maybe a couple-
hundred-million-dollar budget expenditure the first year. But when you
look out to the future years, that number goes up, potentially
swallowing the entire intelligence portion of the budget.
I think we in Congress ought to say: Wait a minute. Before we spend
that first couple hundred million dollars, tell us what the cost is
going to be and what it is going to take out of the budget in future
years to accommodate it.
This amendment would require the intelligence community to provide
Congress with a future-year intelligence plan that is a 5-year budget
and a long-term budget projection that covers 10 years beyond the
future intelligence plan. These requirements would ensure that Congress
would not appropriate or legislate in the dark without knowing what
these wonderful new ideas--and there are some great ideas--are going to
cost in the future and how we are going to pay for them.
Next, my final good government provision, No. 5392, requires annual
personnel level assessments for the intelligence community. As with
most all of my amendments, the provision has been included in the last
two intelligence authorization bills.
So why the need for this amendment? These assessments will help
Congress get a better sense of the personnel growth in the IC before we
mark up annual authorization bills. For some time now both the Senate
and House Intelligence Committees have been concerned with rising
personnel growth in the IC.
Finally, I have also just filed an amendment relating to a classified
technology demonstration program. I talked about that last week. My
amendment, which has bipartisan support in both the House and the
Senate and has been passed by both bodies in the past, will ensure that
billions of taxpayer dollars that have been wasted through poor
management and oversight will not be followed by more in the future.
This amendment, as I described last week, would say that before the
National Reconnaissance Organization embarks on spending billions of
dollars on a program, it needs to do a demonstration program in the
millions of dollars category to see if all the systems work so that we
have a good idea before we get a system that has wasted billions and
billions of dollars to find out only then that it can't work.
I think Congress has a reasonably high expectation of the DNI and of
his ability to reform the intelligence community, but we cannot expect
great results if we don't give the authorities and the support he needs
to demand performance and accountability. My amendments will give him
these authorities and will also allow Congress to perform our real
effective oversight duties.
These amendments have been vetted with the Intelligence Committees
over the past 2 years and most were contained in the 2008 Intelligence
Authorization Act that passed both Houses of Congress. I believe and I
think my colleagues' votes over the past 2 years have shown that they
make sense and are reasonable.
If there is no consideration of including these amendments or simply
allowing a vote on the budget amendment, which is the most important of
all, then I am left with little choice but to continue to object to any
UC agreements on this bill.
I thank my distinguished colleagues, the Chair, and the ranking
member, for listening to my comments, and I look forward to being able
to work out with them a reasonable accommodation of these very
important matters that I think are essential to ensuring effective
intelligence oversight of the money that we spend in the National
Intelligence Program.
Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill.) Without objection, it is so
ordered.
[...]
