National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
SENATE
Oct. 1, 2004

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE REFORM ACT OF 2004

Mr. BYRD. Walt Whitman said:

A man is a great thing upon the Earth, and through eternity-but every jot of greatness of man is unfolded out of woman.

So let me pay tribute to our Presiding Officer at this moment.

Madam President, I have the utmost respect for the two managers of this bill. I have the utmost respect for their dedication and for the knowledge which they bring to bear upon this subject. I am not a member of the committee that has jurisdiction over the legislation before the Senate. So I salute them and tip my hat to them and bow to them.

So what I say is certainly in no fashion, in no way or form any criticism of them. They are doing the best they can do.

But the Constitution of the United States still lives. It still governs. Let's read this paragraph from section 9 of the U.S. Constitution:

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.

Let these words sink in:

. . . and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published

from time to time.

We have to keep that provision in mind.

The amendment I have offered today simply ensures that the national intelligence director spends money in accordance with the annual appropriations bills. It provides the flexibility that the director may require but limits that flexibility to the laws passed by Congress and to the knowledge that there is this provision:

. . . a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public money-

"All public money."

. . . all public money shall be published from time to time.

We cannot allow this national intelligence director to spend the people's tax dollars without restraint, without some limitation, without some restraint. A $40 billion blank check? We cannot allow the national intelligence director to spend money without regard to Congress. There must be some limitations on his spending authority.

Without this amendment, the intelligence director, and not the Congress, will determine how certain appropriated moneys are spent. We must not remove all limitations on this new intelligence director. If we yield the power of the purse to this new intelligence director, then we have only limited means to rein him in if there are abuses of power.
My amendment limits the transfer of appropriations to $100 million and even allows the Department heads to waive that limitation as long as it is consistent with appropriations law. That, it seems to me, should be more than enough flexibility. We must retain some limitation. The intelligence director must not be allowed to write his own appropriations bill. That would elevate him above the Congress. That will elevate him, an intelligence director, above the people's elected representatives in Congress.

We talk about the trumpet that gives an uncertain sound. Yes. How can we be certain as to what we are doing when we are rushed and pressured into passing legislation as major as this legislation in such a limited time, which is hours? We are being pressured to pass this legislation before we adjourn sine die. This is massive legislation. It is far-reaching legislation. The Congress should not have to operate under a hammer, as we are being driven here.

Henry Kissinger came before the Appropriations Committee when Senator Stevens held those hearings. I compliment my chairman, Mr. Stevens, on having those hearings. Henry Kissinger, a man with vast experience, vast knowledge, advised us not to pass this gargantuan measure in such a hurry and under such pressure and during a Presidential campaign.

I say to my colleagues, we ought not bend to the lash of the whip on the part of the leadership, on the part of the administration, on the part of anyone else. We should take more time. We do not know what we are doing here. I am seeking to protect the people's representatives and the Congress from making what could be a major mistake.
We were rushed into passing legislation creating a Department of Homeland Security, were we not? I tried to get more time. I tried to get the leadership on both sides to listen. They would not listen. Now we find that there are major problems with that Department.

On that fateful occasion on October 11, when the Senate voted to shift the constitutional power to declare war from the Congress-not just one body of Congress, but both bodies of Congress-to one man, oh, what a terrible mistake that was, what a terrible error. We were told: Let's get it behind us. Let's get it behind us. Let's get it behind us. The idea was to get that legislation passed before that election. So the Senate passed that legislation in a hurry, on October 11 of that year.

Oh, we will always rue that day that the Senate bent to the urgings of the leadership, which said: Let's get it behind us. We have not gotten it behind us. We did not get it behind us. I said at the time we would not get it behind us. I said at the time that the President, Mr. Bush, would not let us get it behind us. That was what he wanted. He wanted the Senate to bend in that critical hour before an election so that the Senators who voted on that measure would be somehow conscious that there was an election down the road, and particularly those who were running would be under the whiplash of an election.

Oh, what a terrible mistake. I felt so ashamed. For the first time in my 46 years in this Senate, I felt ashamed that the Senate was knuckling under to the executive branch and making a mistake which is rued to this day and will be rued to the end of time. That blotch upon the escutcheon of this great body, the first time in my 46 years that I was ashamed, this Senate stood mute. It stood bowed. It was intimidated.

And we can make another mistake if we go and rush in too big a hurry. We are doing a big thing here. I do not set myself up as anyone who has the vast knowledge that Mr. Lieberman has or that Ms. Collins has over this subject matter. I am not on that committee. But I do know when we are being pressured to act in too big a hurry. This is a big bill. Why can't we wait until after the first of the year? Why can't we wait until a new Congress, perhaps with a new President-who knows?-a new Chief Executive? Why can't we wait and do the job right? This is a job that we ought to do right and not do it under the gun.

I do not know what is in this bill. I am not on the committee. I do not know what is in this bill. I do not claim to know what is in the bill. But I tell you, we must not remove all limitations on this new intelligence director. Why, this man is going to be God when it comes to appropriations and legislation and matters affecting the people.

This is the perfect example of how we are rushing through this intelligence bill without fully understanding what we are doing. I do not understand what we are doing, and I need to understand what we are doing. To properly represent the people from West Virginia, I need to understand what we are doing.

Now, fortunately, I have a good colleague on the Intelligence Committee, Senator Rockefeller. But I tell you, we are dealing with matters that go to the heart-the heart-of a free government.

Englishmen spilled their blood for centuries to wield the power of the purse away from monarchs in England. They shed their blood, yes, going all the way back to the Magna Carta, the great charter, in 1215. It was signed on the banks of the Thames River.

I think we ought to go a little slower. This is a perfect example of how we are rushing through this intelligence bill. I say it with all due respect to Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins. I admire them, but I admire the Constitution also. I think we ought to stop, look, and listen, and slow down a little bit here.

Without this amendment, the Congress will cede its power of the purse just as it ceded the authority to declare war 2 years ago. We owe it to the 9/11 families to get this right. I say to my staff all the time: If you don't do the job right, how are you going to find time to do it over? That applies in this instance, too. I say that with all due respect.
There is nothing to keep my colleague-my cherished friend, for whom I have great admiration-from coming back next year, from sitting in the driver's seat and doing this thing and doing it perhaps better than he has done it in the first instance. I have no doubt that he would go at it with a will.

In the long run, the victims of 9/11 will not forgive us if we give away the power of the purse. And don't forget, it is not just that first sentence. There is more to it than the first sentence:

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-

Not just some, all-

public Money shall be published from time to time.

Better ponder that bit of verbiage before we get in too big a hurry here.

We will have some opportunities to talk further about this amendment. In sitting down, let me again pay homage to my friend, a public servant whom I long have admired, and this fine lady. I tell you, she is a stalwart. But God save the Constitution. God save it. Let's don't be in too big a hurry. Take a little more time and do it right.

I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TEXT

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I have no intention of belaboring this today. I understand we are going to vote next week, on Monday at 3. I hope we will have an opportunity to debate this further on Monday.

The distinguished Senator, Ms. Collins, has said: What more do we need? What other witnesses do we need to hear? Let me name some witnesses who are represented by the distinguished Henry Kissinger when he appeared before the Appropriations Committee. What an impressive bipartisan array of national security experts pleading with Congress not to rush these reforms. The list is a list of stars from both sides of the aisle, as it were: David Boren, Bill Bradley, Frank Carlucci, William Cohen, Robert Gates, John Hamre, Gary Hart, Sam Nunn, Warren Rudman, George Shultz, as I have already mentioned, Henry Kissinger.

These men from both sides, both political parties, men who have held preeminent positions in this Government, Republicans and Democrats, appeared before the Appropriations Committee and said: Wait, don't act in too great a hurry. They have decades of knowledge and experience, and yet we stand ready to dismiss their concerns out of hand.

Let us not be rushed into this. I am not opposed to a national intelligence director. I am not opposed to that. Elections are a perfect time for a debate but a terrible time for decisionmaking. When it comes to intelligence reform, Americans should not settle for adjustments that are driven by the calendar instead of by common sense. They deserve a thoughtful, comprehensive approach to these critical issues.

I am not saying the distinguished members of that committee were not thoughtful. They were. But if, as seems likely, Congress considers it is essential to act now on certain structural reforms, we believe it has an obligation-I do-to return to this issue early next year in the 109th Congress to address these issues more comprehensively. It would seem to me that-let me say again-such a list, a list of stars, as former members of the Government are concerned: David Boren, Bill Bradley, Frank Carlucci, William Cohen-so you see, we have former Secretaries of Defense here-Roberts Gates, John Hamre, Gary Hart, Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, Warren Rudman, and George Shultz. These luminaries are asking for more time. These witnesses testified before the Appropriations Committee, and all of them said: Go slow; go slow.

Let me tell you who these people are.

Dr. John Hamre is the CEO at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The others have services and titles that speak for themselves. I will not go into these. But I am simply saying we need to talk some more about this next week. I hope we will ponder carefully. I am not opposed to a national intelligence director, but I simply say we should have more time.

We saw, Madam President, the unwisdom of being in a hurry when it came to the invasion of Iraq. Our Government invaded. It won a short war, but it had not given proper thought to what would come after, had not given proper thought, it had not planned properly and carefully for a postwar Iraq. And now look at what is happening. Look at the terrible cost, the terrible price this Government is paying-paying with the blood of the sons and daughters of our country. Think of it.

Let's don't be in such a big hurry. Let's take more time.

Madam President, I shall have more to say at a later time. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TEXT

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, will the distinguished Senator yield?

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Plato thanked the gods for having been born a man. He thanked the gods for having been born a Greek. He thanked the gods for having let him live in the same age as Sophocles. And so I thank the benign hand of destiny for allowing me to live at a time and to serve at a time when the great Appropriations Committee of the Senate was chaired by the very distinguished Senator from the great State that is the mother of Presidents, the State of Virginia, a state from which comes the first President of this country, the first Commander in Chief of the Nation, George Washington.

I have always admired Senator Warner. He is a gentleman, first of all, and that goes a long way in this body. I thank him for his comments. I thank him for his cosponsorship of this amendment, and I look forward to what he has to say.

Right now, I should go to the Hart Building, where a woman who has been my wife for 67 years, 4 months, and 2 days, is waiting to see me. We are going to have lunch together, thank the Good Lord. So if all Senators will allow me to leave the Chamber now, I shall go.

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. BYRD. If the Senator will yield, I thank him for his magnificent encomium to my better half, a woman who has guided me and who has served her country and her State so well. I thank the Senator for what he has just said.