[国会纪录：2008年9月23日（参议院）] [Page S9267-S9268]情报监督Inouye先生。主席先生，9月11日，密苏里州的高级参议员，邦德先生来到地板上介绍了一个决议这表明拨款委员会应设立一个小组委员会智力。虽然我不同意，这将是要么参议院或国家有益，参议员，当然有他的意见的权利。我会告诉我的同事，在拨款委员会的领导人，参议员伯德和科克伦，谁负责的委员会的分工中，他们在今年早些时候发给参议员里德和麦康奈尔致信此事。而不是辩论这件事我只想指出，主席和高级成员提出一个非常令人信服的理由反对这一提议阐明情报监督显著损害，可能导致由参议员邦德提供的建议。我想强调，从他们的信一个观察。他们指出，该提案的参议员品牌将不得不进一步限制谁可以访问智能方案的细节成员的数量的影响。它将把所有决策到少数人手中。他们指出，情报节目中，广大市民的监督团体和新闻媒体必须被拒绝访问的信息，国会能做的绝对最糟糕的事情是进一步约束监督和消除来自有更多的好处个人分享在决策过程的责任。我同意他们的看法由参议员从密苏里州提出的建议不会提高智力的国会监督。 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. ____________________