Nbadan
10-12-2004, 02:17 AM
The third thread in a series intended to help voters dig through the spin and make a informed decision on November 2nd...
Summary
The Bush campaign accused Kerry of "a pattern" of trying to cut intelligence funding. Bush personally accused Kerry of attempting to "gut the intelligence services" with a "deeply irresponsible" 1995 proposal.
It's true that Kerry proposed cuts in 1994 and 1995, and the his 1994 proposal was criticized on the Senate floor by some members of his own party. But the proposal Bush criticized would have amounted to a reduction of roughly 1%. And senior congressional Republicans supported a cut two-thirds as large at the time.
Analysis
President Bush said March 8 at a political fundraiser in Dallas that Kerry's 1995 proposal to cut $1.5 billion over five years was "deeply irresponsible."
His bill was so deeply irresponsible that he didn't have a single co-sponsor in the United States Senate. Once again, Senator Kerry is trying to have it both ways. He's for good intelligence, yet he was willing to gut the intelligence services. And that is no way to lead a nation in a time of war.
"Gut" intelligence? It was 1%
It's true that Kerry's 1995 proposal called for cutting intelligence funding by $1.5 billion over five years. The actual amount of intelligence spending is classified, but according to the Boston Globe, the Washington Post and others, the US was spending roughly $27 billion on intelligence at the time. So the $300-million cut would have amounted to a little over 1 percent. Hardly a "gutting."
It's true Kerry's measure had no co-sponsors and died without a hearing. But that's hardly evidence it was "deeply irresponsible" as the President claimed. On the contrary, there was bipartisan support for cutting what was seen as wasteful spending of classified intelligence funds.
In fact, Kerry's proposal came five days after the Washington Post had reported that one intelligence agency, the super-secret National Reconnaissance Office, had quietly hoarded between $1 billion and $1.7 billion in unspent funds without informing the Central Intelligence Agency or the Pentagon. The CIA was in the midst of an inquiry into the NRO's funding because of complaints that the agency had spent $300 million on unspent funds from its classified budget to build a new headquarters building in Virginia a year earlier.
"Irresponsible?" But Republicans Approved.
Also, the very same day Kerry proposed his $1.5 billion cut, the Senate passed by voice vote an amendment proposed by Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania to eliminate $1 billion in intelligence funds for fiscal year 1996. Specter made clear he was attempting to recoup $1 billion in unused intelligence funds from the NRO:
It has alleged that the NRO has accumulated more than $1 billion in unspent funds without informing the Pentagon, CIA, or Congress.
Kerry co-sponsored a companion measure to the Specter amendment, along with Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama. The cut eventually became law as part of a House-Senate package endorsed by the Republican leadership.
And in fact, the reports of an NRO slush fund turned out to be true. According to former CIA general counsel Jeffrey Smith, who led the investigation:
Our inquiry revealed that the NRO had for years accumulated very substantial amount as a 'rainy day fund.'
Smith, quoted by Slate Magazine, said Kerry's proposal was an attempt "to re-assert adequate Congressional oversight of the intelligence budget."
A "pattern?" Well, not exactly
The Bush campaign in a March 9 document accused Kerry of "a pattern of intelligence cuts." But aside from the 1995 proposal, the only evidence of a "pattern" offered was a 1994 deficit-reduction bill Kerry sponsored (S. 1826) that included a $1 billion a year in cuts to the intelligence budget for 1994-1998.
It is true that some members of Kerry's own party criticized that proposal. Sen. Dennis DeConcini said intelligence funds already had been cut $3.5 billion:
I continue to believe that last year's intelligence cut was as deep as the intelligence community can withstand during its post-cold-war transition.
And Sen. Daniel Inouye echoed that:
An additional $1 billion would severely hamper the intelligence community's ability to provide decisionmakers and policymakers with information on matters vital to this country.
On Feb 10,1994, Kerry's amendment was defeated 75-20 with 38 Democratic Senators voting against it.
But it is also true that even at that time there was growing concern about the how effectively the intelligence agencies were spending the money they had. Later in 1994 Congress formed the Aspin Commission to assess the state of the intelligence services. It was bipartisan. Following the death of former Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, for whom the panel was named, it was headed by another former Secretary of Defense, Harold Brown, and by Republican former Sen. Warren Rudman of New Hampshire.
When the 17-member panel completed its report two years later, it said intelligence funding, despite recent cuts, was still 80% higher than it had been in 1980 even after adjustments for inflation. And while the commission did not recommend any more cuts, it acknowledged that balancing the federal budget would probably require that cuts be made.
And the commission stopped well short of claiming further cuts would "gut" the intelligence services:
Reductions to the existing and planned intelligence resources may be possible without damaging the nation's security. Indeed, finding such reductions is critical . . . (I)t is clear a more rigorous analysis of the resources budgeted for intelligence is required.
Fact Check (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=153)
--
So what Republicans claim was an attempt by Kerry to 'gut intelligence spending' was actually only a reduction in spending of less than 1% of the total budget. Hardly a gutting, and senior congressional Republicans supported a cut two-thirds as large at the time.
Kerry did cut intelligence spending by another 1.5 billion, but...
Also, the very same day Kerry proposed his $1.5 billion cut, the Senate passed by voice vote an amendment proposed by Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania to eliminate $1 billion in intelligence funds for fiscal year 1996. Specter made clear he was attempting to recoup $1 billion in unused intelligence funds from the NRO:
It has alleged that the NRO has accumulated more than $1 billion in unspent funds without informing the Pentagon, CIA, or Congress.
Kerry co-sponsored a companion measure to the Specter amendment, along with Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama. The cut eventually became law as part of a House-Senate package endorsed by the Republican leadership.
And in fact, the reports of an NRO slush fund turned out to be true. According to former CIA general counsel Jeffrey Smith, who led the investigation:
Our inquiry revealed that the NRO had for years accumulated very substantial amount as a 'rainy day fund.'
Smith, quoted by Slate Magazine, said Kerry's proposal was an attempt "to re-assert adequate Congressional oversight of the intelligence budget."
...clearly was not an attempt to cut intelligence as much as to make sure that intelligence agencies were spending the billions of dollars that were being appropriated every year for intelligence purposes and not for inappropriate expenses. The NRO clearly needed over sight and to be reigned in as far as spending.
Summary
The Bush campaign accused Kerry of "a pattern" of trying to cut intelligence funding. Bush personally accused Kerry of attempting to "gut the intelligence services" with a "deeply irresponsible" 1995 proposal.
It's true that Kerry proposed cuts in 1994 and 1995, and the his 1994 proposal was criticized on the Senate floor by some members of his own party. But the proposal Bush criticized would have amounted to a reduction of roughly 1%. And senior congressional Republicans supported a cut two-thirds as large at the time.
Analysis
President Bush said March 8 at a political fundraiser in Dallas that Kerry's 1995 proposal to cut $1.5 billion over five years was "deeply irresponsible."
His bill was so deeply irresponsible that he didn't have a single co-sponsor in the United States Senate. Once again, Senator Kerry is trying to have it both ways. He's for good intelligence, yet he was willing to gut the intelligence services. And that is no way to lead a nation in a time of war.
"Gut" intelligence? It was 1%
It's true that Kerry's 1995 proposal called for cutting intelligence funding by $1.5 billion over five years. The actual amount of intelligence spending is classified, but according to the Boston Globe, the Washington Post and others, the US was spending roughly $27 billion on intelligence at the time. So the $300-million cut would have amounted to a little over 1 percent. Hardly a "gutting."
It's true Kerry's measure had no co-sponsors and died without a hearing. But that's hardly evidence it was "deeply irresponsible" as the President claimed. On the contrary, there was bipartisan support for cutting what was seen as wasteful spending of classified intelligence funds.
In fact, Kerry's proposal came five days after the Washington Post had reported that one intelligence agency, the super-secret National Reconnaissance Office, had quietly hoarded between $1 billion and $1.7 billion in unspent funds without informing the Central Intelligence Agency or the Pentagon. The CIA was in the midst of an inquiry into the NRO's funding because of complaints that the agency had spent $300 million on unspent funds from its classified budget to build a new headquarters building in Virginia a year earlier.
"Irresponsible?" But Republicans Approved.
Also, the very same day Kerry proposed his $1.5 billion cut, the Senate passed by voice vote an amendment proposed by Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania to eliminate $1 billion in intelligence funds for fiscal year 1996. Specter made clear he was attempting to recoup $1 billion in unused intelligence funds from the NRO:
It has alleged that the NRO has accumulated more than $1 billion in unspent funds without informing the Pentagon, CIA, or Congress.
Kerry co-sponsored a companion measure to the Specter amendment, along with Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama. The cut eventually became law as part of a House-Senate package endorsed by the Republican leadership.
And in fact, the reports of an NRO slush fund turned out to be true. According to former CIA general counsel Jeffrey Smith, who led the investigation:
Our inquiry revealed that the NRO had for years accumulated very substantial amount as a 'rainy day fund.'
Smith, quoted by Slate Magazine, said Kerry's proposal was an attempt "to re-assert adequate Congressional oversight of the intelligence budget."
A "pattern?" Well, not exactly
The Bush campaign in a March 9 document accused Kerry of "a pattern of intelligence cuts." But aside from the 1995 proposal, the only evidence of a "pattern" offered was a 1994 deficit-reduction bill Kerry sponsored (S. 1826) that included a $1 billion a year in cuts to the intelligence budget for 1994-1998.
It is true that some members of Kerry's own party criticized that proposal. Sen. Dennis DeConcini said intelligence funds already had been cut $3.5 billion:
I continue to believe that last year's intelligence cut was as deep as the intelligence community can withstand during its post-cold-war transition.
And Sen. Daniel Inouye echoed that:
An additional $1 billion would severely hamper the intelligence community's ability to provide decisionmakers and policymakers with information on matters vital to this country.
On Feb 10,1994, Kerry's amendment was defeated 75-20 with 38 Democratic Senators voting against it.
But it is also true that even at that time there was growing concern about the how effectively the intelligence agencies were spending the money they had. Later in 1994 Congress formed the Aspin Commission to assess the state of the intelligence services. It was bipartisan. Following the death of former Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, for whom the panel was named, it was headed by another former Secretary of Defense, Harold Brown, and by Republican former Sen. Warren Rudman of New Hampshire.
When the 17-member panel completed its report two years later, it said intelligence funding, despite recent cuts, was still 80% higher than it had been in 1980 even after adjustments for inflation. And while the commission did not recommend any more cuts, it acknowledged that balancing the federal budget would probably require that cuts be made.
And the commission stopped well short of claiming further cuts would "gut" the intelligence services:
Reductions to the existing and planned intelligence resources may be possible without damaging the nation's security. Indeed, finding such reductions is critical . . . (I)t is clear a more rigorous analysis of the resources budgeted for intelligence is required.
Fact Check (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=153)
--
So what Republicans claim was an attempt by Kerry to 'gut intelligence spending' was actually only a reduction in spending of less than 1% of the total budget. Hardly a gutting, and senior congressional Republicans supported a cut two-thirds as large at the time.
Kerry did cut intelligence spending by another 1.5 billion, but...
Also, the very same day Kerry proposed his $1.5 billion cut, the Senate passed by voice vote an amendment proposed by Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania to eliminate $1 billion in intelligence funds for fiscal year 1996. Specter made clear he was attempting to recoup $1 billion in unused intelligence funds from the NRO:
It has alleged that the NRO has accumulated more than $1 billion in unspent funds without informing the Pentagon, CIA, or Congress.
Kerry co-sponsored a companion measure to the Specter amendment, along with Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama. The cut eventually became law as part of a House-Senate package endorsed by the Republican leadership.
And in fact, the reports of an NRO slush fund turned out to be true. According to former CIA general counsel Jeffrey Smith, who led the investigation:
Our inquiry revealed that the NRO had for years accumulated very substantial amount as a 'rainy day fund.'
Smith, quoted by Slate Magazine, said Kerry's proposal was an attempt "to re-assert adequate Congressional oversight of the intelligence budget."
...clearly was not an attempt to cut intelligence as much as to make sure that intelligence agencies were spending the billions of dollars that were being appropriated every year for intelligence purposes and not for inappropriate expenses. The NRO clearly needed over sight and to be reigned in as far as spending.