国会记录：2004年10月4日（参议院）2004年全国情报改革法案为2004年的主席。根据上一份顺序，参议院现在将恢复职员报告的职员的审议。票据职员如下：账单（2845年），改革情报界和美国政府的情报和情报相关活动，以及其他目的。[...]修正第3903号洛克菲勒先生。主席女士，我今天上涨反对第3903号修正案，由参议员TED史蒂文斯提供。这项修正案在条例草案中罢免，要求披露披露所要求，授权和为国家情报计划拨款的总额。9/11委员会建议的基本改革之一，我长期支持。这项修正案的支持者取得了两名中央论点。首先，他们建议我们急于在没有完全理解含义的情况下进入这个决定。其次，他们建议揭示整体支出的数量可以以某种方式损害我们的国家安全。 Let us address the first argument, that we are rushing into this decision. I must point out this is not a new debate. The Congress has been considering this particular question for at least a decade. In 1993, the Senate adopted an amendment calling for the disclosure of the aggregate amount of intelligence spending. Let me repeat that the Senate endorsed the idea 11 years ago. That effort and a subsequent attempt to make the top line public, which is what we are talking about--the total amount of the intelligence budget--in 1997 had the support of Senators Specter, Boren, and DeConcini, all of whom served as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. We had a full and complete debate in 1993, and this issue has been reviewed, debated, and discussed numerous times in the intervening years. The argument that we are being rushed into this decision is an excuse being used to stop this important change. Regarding the second argument, that disclosing the overall budget will damage our national security, I cannot cite a better source than the Deputy Director of the CIA John McLaughlin who testified last month that this important step would reinforce responsibility and accountability, not only for those receiving the money but for the Congress as well. In addition, Robert Gates and John Deutch, former Directors of Central Intelligence, have said that releasing the number would not damage national security. Arguing that disclosure of the total spending for national intelligence would compromise our security and provide enemies with useful information about our intelligence programs ignores the reality of the current situation. While the number is in fact classified, it is widely reported in the press. It also was officially declassified for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 by former DCI Tenet. Some have argued that the total amount is not the problem; it is the budget trends that need to be protected. Again, current practice undermines this argument. Every year when we do the intelligence authorization bill, the chairmen and vice chairmen in both Houses come to the floor and talk about whether we have increased or decreased the budget that year. Often those statements include specific percentage increases. These discussions and trends disclose nothing about the specific intelligence programs being funded. The idea that our enemies can somehow determine something about our intelligence capability by knowing the total of what we spend is simply not accurate. Year-to-year changes in any specific program will not move the overall total number enough to give an adversary any indication of how that money is being spent. In other sensitive national security areas, we disclose much more information without doing damage. We currently disclose an enormous amount of detail about our defense budget and military capabilities. The amount of money we spend on personnel, acquisition, and research and development is unclassified. Also available are the amounts for specific weapons systems, such as tanks, aircraft, and missile defense. Even much of the spending in the defense budget for specific tactical intelligence programs is unclassified currently. The disclosure of the total of the national intelligence budget is simply not an academic debate. This step is critical to many of the other reforms in [[Page S10325]] this bill which our floor managers are trying so hard to get done, and to some of the proposed congressional reforms we will be discussing later this week. Without a separate unclassified budget number, the fund for the National Intelligence Program will still need to be included in the Defense Department budget. This arrangement will hinder effective control by the national intelligence director and will restrict our ability to organize in a way to streamline congressional oversight, which is what the 9/11 Commission and our floor managers are seeking in their legislation. To conclude, it will be virtually impossible to have a separate appropriations for intelligence without the declassified intelligence budget. If we do not take this step and make this number public, we are seriously undermining the reforms in this bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Stevens amendment and support this key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor. Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his very eloquent presentation. As the Senator indicated, the intelligence budget's aggregate number has been made public twice by the DCI. So this is not unprecedented. But if the amendment offered by the Senator from Alaska were adopted, let there be no mistake of what the effect would be. The effect would be that the funding for the National Intelligence Program would still be funded through Department of Defense. The whole purpose of this bill is to create a national intelligence director with significant authority, and the first and perhaps most significant of those authorities is the control of the budget. The only way you can give the NID true control over the budget is if you have a separate account that the NID controls. And we need to do that by declassifying the top level number. We did not go as far as the 9/11 Commission recommended. The 9/11 Commission recommended declassifying the top lines of all the agencies' budgets within the National Intelligence Program. We did not adopt that approach. Instead, we are only declassifying the aggregate number for the entire national intelligence budget, a number I note is often estimated and reported in the newspapers today. But the point I want to make to supplement the remarks of the Senator from West Virginia is if we do not do this, if we adopt the amendment offered by the Senator from Alaska, we will undermine a key reform in the bill because the intelligence budget is so big that if it is not going to be declassified, it has to go through the Department of Defense. There is no other agency or department that is big enough to conceal the total amount of the budget. This is going to be an important vote which is coming up this afternoon. [...] Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I apologize for not being here earlier. I thank the managers of the bill, Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, and their staffs for the work that has been done over the weekend, which we will be hearing about soon, trying to meet us halfway in terms of some of the objections we have raised to the bill. We will soon vote on amendment No. 3903, which the Senator from Maine has just discussed, declassification responsibility. This is an enormous step to take mainly because of the absolute lobbying and pressure from two people from the 9/11 Commission. I have talked to other members on the Commission who were not so keen about declassification of the entire intelligence budget other than Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Kean. Clearly, it is a massive step. From President Truman to President Bush, every President of the United States has said do not declassify the top line of our budget. We have voted in the Senate many times since I have been in the Senate as Members have tried to do this, and we have uniformly turned down such a proposal. Now it is in a bill for the first time. We must take it out. It requires 51 votes to take out. In the past, it took 51 votes to pass. We are in a different position now than we were before. Very clearly, because of the scope of this bill, we are doing something even more expansive than amendments that came before the Senate before. Again, I call the attention of the Senators who will vote to the scope of the definition of national intelligence under this bill. It is a sweeping definition. I ask that page 6, beginning on line 19, be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: (6) The term ``National Intelligence Program''-- (A)(i) refers to all national intelligence programs, projects, and activities of the elements of the intelligence community; (ii) includes all programs, projects, and activities (whether or not pertaining to national intelligence) of the National Intelligence Authority, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the Office of Intelligence of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Office of Information analysis of the Department of Homeland Security; and (ii) includes any other program, project, or activity of a department, agency, or element of the United States Government relating to national intelligence unless the National Intelligence Director and the head of the department, agency, or element concerned determine otherwise; but (B) except as provided in subparagraph (A)(ii), does not refer to any program, project, or activity of the military departments, including any program, project, or activity of the Defense Intelligence Agency that is not part of the National Foreign Intelligence Program as of the date of the enactment of this Act, to acquire intelligence principally for the planning and conduct of joint or tactical military operations by the United States Armed Forces. Mr. STEVENS. My point is this: Included in intelligence are the top secret plans of this country. They are the planning for future devices and concepts that deal with interception of information. They deal with the ability to identify individuals. They deal with so many classified areas that I may be violating some rules by mentioning the two I mentioned. All the money we put in this bill, hide in the intelligence bill, to stop anyone from knowing about it, has to be disclosed under this direction, to include everything, any program, project, or activity of any one of these agencies. I plead with Members to think about classification. This is not routine classification of who is an employee of the CIA. That is bad enough, come to think of it. These activities are so far reaching, and with so many agencies, including the defense agency that deals with research activities. It has projects it is working on, which are so far out that may prove to be viable. They are part of the intelligence budget. They are classified. They are down in the black portion of the bill and are kept classified because we do not want anyone to know what we are researching and what we are developing. It would be included in this. No amendment we ever looked at before would have done that, but because of the definition of intelligence in this bill it becomes all inclusive and there is no alternative. Sometimes I think maybe I am just not able to communicate totally what I am thinking about this bill. It is far reaching to the point of having the ability to destroy intelligence capability to plan for the future. There is no question about the right to know everything--except the secrets of the country. Aren't we allowed to [[Page S10326]] have some secrets? Do we have to disclose a number that encompasses the financing of secret activities, some so classified they are not even top secret; they are code word? You have to be cleared for the word. You have to be totally cleared. And there are very few people cleared for these activities. I don't think there are many people in the Senate who are cleared for code word activities. Should we tell them what we are spending for code word activities? We do not even tell them the word--but we will have to print in the Record now, disclose in the top line of the intelligence budget, all of those activities. I will speak later about it. Again, I implore the managers of the bill to think twice about this precedent we would be setting, reversing the votes in the Senate--reversing because now it requires 51 votes to take it out. In the past, it was 51 votes to get it passed. This has shifted the burden from the intelligence people who want to protect the Intelligence Committee to the people who do not understand it, do not wish to really understand it. I am not being accusatory of my two friends. They have worked hard and are trying to understand, but some of us have lived a lifetime in trying to understand it. This amendment has to pass. If we want to disclose the budget to the extent that it is not classified in terms of top secret or above, that is another matter. We can disclose a portion of the budget that is in the secret category, but when we get to top secret and above--no. If we include that, count me out. I cannot believe we would do that. I hope the Senator will listen to us later. Mr. BURNS. Will the Senator yield? Mr. STEVENS. I am delighted to yield. Mr. BURNS. As I looked at this amendment and thought of making available the information of how much we spend on intelligence--not only are there operations we have to take into consideration, lives of people are on the line. We make them more vulnerable every day in their work, gathering intelligence. Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is absolutely right. Mr. BURNS. And I ask the Senator, has anyone determined what it does to the human assets, the people? They are the best we have. Are they willing to work for this agency to get the best intelligence we need? Mr. STEVENS. The problem is, once we make available this top line they wish to disclose and then start through the budget on what you can find easily, pretty soon you come down to the portion of the budget that is in the classified sector, and then you start to pick it apart. You know what will happen. It will keep getting question after question after question. But the people who risk their lives, who are foreign nationals, are paid from this budget. We are really going to put in there how much we are paying people around the world to spy for us? Are we naive enough to think we are not paying people? It would be in there. Unless the Senator disagrees with me, there is one little exception: unless someone decides otherwise. I am not sure what that means because it only refers to that one section. It is related to national intelligence. Now, national intelligence is intelligence that is covered by section 5. It does not refer to counterintelligence or law enforcement activities conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It does not say it does not cover counterintelligence or activities of the CIA or the DIA, but it does for the FBI. I think the problem is, the definitions of these programs are so specific now to this bill. But this one covers the disclosure of the total amount. That is what I object to. Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I have drawn the conclusion that basically this destroys the network. And we wonder why we do not have human resources on the ground in some areas in the world and, yes, even in our own country. I will tell you, if this is disclosed, this will be one of the main reasons that we will have. Mr. STEVENS. Let me tell the Senator one thing before I quit. I remember one morning I woke up and the New York Times had a picture of the Predator on the front page, and it disclosed that it was capable of carrying the Hellfire missile. If there was anything that was totally classified at that time, that was it, and there it was out there on the front page. Do you know what. About a week later, we missed several people in Afghanistan on whom we were trying to use the Hellfire missile. They knew it was already there. They knew it was armed by that time. Before that, it had not been armed and before that no one had the capability to arm it. But we developed a way to arm it, and there it was on the front page of the New York Times. Now, this concept of leakage of the intelligence community's activities starts from the top line. I do not understand why we should reverse the history of this Senate. The Senate has never voted to disclose the intelligence budget--never. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut. Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I have great respect for the Senator from Alaska. He has always contributed to our country in so many different ways. I have great respect for his long experience in matters of defense and intelligence. I assure him of this. He raised the question about whether the Senator from Maine and I understand what we are doing. Let me assure him, we understand. We have spent a lot of time studying this issue. The 9/11 Commission has spent a lot of time studying this issue. We disagree with the amendment of the Senator from Alaska. We have a difference of conclusion about policy, but we understand exactly what we are doing. What we are doing is saying that the billions of dollars that are spent every year on intelligence is the people's money. Unless there is a national security reason not to tell them what the bottom line is we are spending, they have a right to know. One of the consequences of that is that there will be more accountability. Acting Director of Central Intelligence John McLaughlin said to our committee: I think it would make some sense to declassify the overall number of the foreign intelligence program. It would reenforce responsibility and accountability. This is nobody who was pulled in out of nowhere to run the CIA. He spent his entire career, more than 30 years, in intelligence. Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield? Mr. LIEBERMAN. No. I would like to---- Mr. STEVENS. But you are using foreign intelligence. This is national intelligence. He talked about foreign intelligence. Mr. LIEBERMAN. Excuse me, he talked about national intelligence before our committee. It is the bottom line, a gross number. The colloquy between the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Alaska was interesting but bore no relevance whatsoever to the proposal in our bill. Do you think we would make this recommendation if we thought it would compromise the security of anybody in our intelligence community? Let me ask you this: How would it? It is the bottom line. It is not even the 15 constituent agencies of the intelligence community. This does not compromise anybody's security any more than the Defense Department budget compromises the security of our soldiers, or the DEA budget, which is public, Drug Enforcement Agency, compromises the security of any of our drug enforcement agents, or the FBI budget. People in DEA and FBI are involved in very dangerous work. Anyway, it is only the bottom line. [...] Amendment No. 3903, as modified The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally divided on the Stevens amendment No. 3903. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, could we have order? Determining classification is the responsibility and duty of the chief executive of the United States, the President, who is also Commander in Chief. Presidents Truman through Bush has determined that the overall intelligence budget top-line figure is, and shall remain, classified, and I believe we should not overrule that judgment. The foundation of an effective intelligence capability, is secrecy. Secrecy protects not only the information that we collect, but also the brave people that put themselves at risk to do the collection of it. We are an open and a free society that generally abhors secret dealings by our Government. But in the case of intelligence collection and analysis, secrecy, is absolutely necessary. Some of my colleagues argue that the American people have a right to know how much of their money is being spent to defend their Nation's security through intelligence-gathering operations. I assert today that, through its elected officials, the public interests are being effectively served. Some argue that disclosing the total budget amount will instill public confidence and enable the American people to know what portion of the Federal budget is dedicated to intelligence activities. This bill recommends that the overall intelligence budget should no longer remain classified. I believe that the total budget figure is of no use to anyone but to those who wish to do us harm. For example, what do the numbers tell our adversaries or potential adversaries in the world? In any given year, perhaps, not a great deal. But while watching the changes in the budget over time, and using information gathered by their own intelligence activities, sophisticated analysts can indeed learn a great deal. Trend analysis, as you know, is a technique that our own analysts use to make predictions and to reach conclusions. There are hostile foreign intelligence agencies all over the world that are focused solely on gathering every bit of information that they can about our own intelligence-gathering operations and our capabilities. Their ultimate goal is to exploit weaknesses and to deny access and to deceive our own intelligence collectors. Denial and deception is already a serious concern for the intelligence community, and providing our enemies or potential enemies with any insight as to what we spend on intelligence will only make it worse, not better. No other nation, friend, or ally, reveals the amount that it spends on intelligence. It would set a terrible, dangerous precedent, because right after the aggregate budget was revealed, that number doesn't say much and so the calls would be quickly for more information. This is a slippery slope. Reveal the first number and it will be just a matter of minutes before there will be a call to reveal more information. I want to remind my colleagues that we voted on a similar measure in 1997--the amendment failed by a vote of 56-43. There have also been five votes in the House--all of which have failed. Let us not change our records now. The President of the United States and every President since Harry Truman has requested that the Senate not declassify the amount our country spends on intelligence. I believe we should listen to what he tells us. I have amended my original amendment to request that only a study be done on this important issue. That the national intelligence director have the time to investigate this important topic and let [[Page S10330]] him, with the President, decide what the safety needs of our Nation are to be. Based on the recommendations of our colleagues here in the past, I hope you will accept this change and support this amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The Senator from Connecticut. Mr. LIEBERMAN. I rise respectfully to oppose the amendment of the Senator from Alaska. The 9/11 Commission recommended that we disclose not only the bottom line of what we spend on intelligence but the budgets of each of the 15 constituent agencies. The Governmental Affairs Committee decided that we could respond and respect the public's right to know by putting out the bottom line number. That means X billion dollars. No details about what goes to what agency or certainly not what goes to what program or what personnel. But we were not ready to order the disclosure of the intelligence agency budget specifically, and we asked the national intelligence director to come back to us with a study. That is a good balance. The Senator from Alaska would prohibit public disclosures of the bottom line. The public has a right to know at least that. One thing they might conclude from that is that we are not spending enough on intelligence in the war on terrorism as compared to other things we are spending on. We worked hard on this. It is balanced. It respects the right to know. The families of people lost on 9/11 oppose this amendment, as I do. I move to table and I ask for the yeas and nays. Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would also point out that if we do not disclose the top line, the result is the intelligence budget is still funded through the Department of Defense. So if we are trying to give the national intelligence director real budget authority, we have to disclose that top line. We are not disclosing the top line of the CIA, the DIA, the NSA; it is only the aggregate figure for the entire national intelligence budget. Otherwise we are not reforming the process. The funding will have to go through the Department of Defense. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified. The amendment (No. 3903), as modified, is as follows: amendment no. 3903 as modified On page 115, strike lines 15 through 25 and insert the following: (a) Study on Disclosure of Aggregate Amount of Appropriations Requested.--The National Intelligence Director shall conduct a study to assess the advisability of disclosing to the public the aggregate amount of appropriations requested in the budget of the President for each fiscal year for the National Intelligence Program. On page 116, line 1, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(b)''. On page 116, strike lines 21 through 23, and insert the following: (c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the effective date of this section, the National Intelligence Director shall submit to Congress a report on the results of the studies carried out under subsections (a) and (b). The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut. Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) is necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) would vote ``aye.'' Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent. The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 37, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 196 Leg.] YEAS--55 Alexander Baucus Bayh Biden Bingaman Boxer Breaux Cantwell Carper Chafee Clinton Coleman Collins Cornyn Daschle Dayton DeWine Dodd Dorgan Durbin Ensign Feingold Feinstein Graham (SC) Grassley Gregg Hagel Harkin Jeffords Johnson Kohl Landrieu Lautenberg Leahy Levin Lieberman Lincoln Lott McCain Mikulski Murray Nelson (FL) Pryor Reed Reid Rockefeller Santorum Sarbanes Schumer Snowe Specter Stabenow Sununu Voinovich Wyden NAYS--37 Allard Allen Bennett Bond Brownback Bunning Burns Byrd Campbell Chambliss Cochran Conrad Craig Crapo Dole Domenici Enzi Fitzgerald Frist Hatch Hutchison Inouye Kyl Lugar McConnell Miller Murkowski Nelson (NE) Nickles Roberts Sessions Shelby Smith Stevens Talent Thomas Warner NOT VOTING--8 Akaka Corzine Edwards Graham (FL) Hollings Inhofe Kennedy Kerry The motion was agreed to. Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from Alaska. Mr. STEVENS. If I give notice of reconsideration of that vote, what happens under the cloture vote as set for tomorrow? The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the vote is reconsidered, the amendment will be pending. Mr. STEVENS. I give notice of reconsideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I regret seriously I was unable to make my statement in full. I was not notified of this time limit when I left on Friday. I came back and found it. The statement of my amendment there was not a statement of my amendment. It was a statement in opposition to my amendment. I was unable to tell the Senate that the statement of policy of the President of the United States supports this amendment. I think the Senate should reconsider tomorrow and think again about this amendment. Is there a time limit on me right now? Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have the floor. Is there a time limit? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator that he cannot move to reconsider as he did not vote on the prevailing side. Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to reconsider the vote. I was on the prevailing side. Ms. COLLINS. I move to lay that motion on the table. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question then is on agreeing to the motion to table. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is that debatable? The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not debatable. The question is on agreeing to the motion to table. The motion is agreed to. Mr. STEVENS. I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. [...]