On the recordOctober 4, 2004
I have been much reassured by the debate, by your comments, and by my further thinking on the subject. I do think it is unlikely that any national intelligence director would not be sensitive to this. And given the congressional concern that has been expressed, if he or she were insensitive, we certainly could do something about it. To give an example--and I shared this with the Senate--on procurement, you know the extent to which we are trying to procure network-centric type platforms for the Army. And since now the various satellite agencies would be under the procurement authority of the NID, it would be important early in this process to get some kind of memorandum of understanding or protocol so there would be a joint type procurement process to make certain that what the Army was doing to get network-centric receivers was compatible with whatever the NID was procuring for satellite. I expect there will be a number of instances in practice where it will be useful for all of us to be aware on a continuing basis of this concern and trying to make certain that they work together, as we did with Goldwater-Nichols. There is an example of a congressional enactment and oversight that has increased the joint process. I don't offer these remarks in hostility to the bill but to put on the record again the importance of this, to make clear your intent and the intent of the Senator from Connecticut in this regard.
Source
govinfo.gov




