A bill to extend the authorization for the Secretary of the Interior to release certain conditions contained in a patent concerning certain land conveyed by the United States to Eastern Washington University.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, is there any time limit on speaking right now?

There is a vote set for 2:15?

Mr. President, I come to the Senate to make extensive remarks on this bill. I do so with the full realization that my schedule prevented me from attending the hearings of the committee on which I am a member, chaired by Senator Collins and the ranking member, Senator Lieberman. I commend them for their activities through July and August with the hearings they conducted. During that period of time, the Senator from Hawaii and I were in a parliamentary conference with the Chinese National Peoples Congress, and we had other events that prevented us from being in Washington while they conducted the hearings.

I preface this to say I voted for the bill to come out of the committee, but at the time I stated specifically to the managers of the bill that I would have some amendments in the Senate and whether I voted for the final passage of this bill would depend upon the outcome of some of those amendments.

Let me also say in this preface to my comments that as the staff reports were prepared by the 9/11 Commission, and my staff delivered those to me from the Internet and I read those--I also read the report when it first came out--and then, on the increased pressure that came from the members of the former 9/11 Commission to have early consideration of this subject, I reread the report and formed some very fixed opinions about this subject.

I have never seen members of a Commission, which went out of existence upon delivering the report, lobby the Congress so hard. My understanding is they raised a considerable amount of money, rehired some of their staff, and are currently lobbying the Congress. I do hope they have complied with the lobbying laws. In any event, this pressure has been significant and it is compelling the Congress to judgment in a very short period of time, in my judgment.

As I said, I have read and reread the 9/11 Commission Report. Last week, our Appropriations Committee held hearings on the report recommendations. We did that because when I returned to Washington I found there was a series of people who indicated they had not been heard by the Governmental Affairs Committee who wanted to have an opportunity to present testimony to the Congress.

We heard from Dr. Henry Kissinger; from three former military commanders in chief: GEN Joe Ralston, U.S. Air Force, retired, former commander of the U.S. European Command and supreme allied commander of Europe and NATO; ADM Dennis Blair, U.S. Navy, retired, former commander of the U.S. Pacific Command; ADM James Ellis, retired, former commander of the U.S. Strategic Command. Our committee also heard testimony from Dr. John Hamre, president and CEO of the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former Under Secretary of Defense. We heard from Judge Richard Posner of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and Dale Watson, former Executive Assistant Director of Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence for the FBI.

Our committee spent 2 days listening to the testimony on the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. Each witness who appeared was an expert in his field with years of dedicated service to the Nation. After listening to their thoughts and suggestions, I have come to the conclusion we have only begun to scratch the surface for what needs to be considered by the Congress before we finally act on this subject.

Copies of the hearings we held before the Appropriations Committee have been given to every Senator and to all intelligence-related staff of the Senate. They are available to anyone who wishes. They were printed as a public document.

Since the passage of the National Security Act in 1947, at least 19 commissions, committees, and panels have made recommendations aimed at reorganizing our Nation's intelligence community. Those proposals have led to changes in internal agency direction, precedence, or directive, and to new statutes, but none of those reports were adopted in their entirety or in this type of timeframe or context.

During last week's hearings before our committee, Senator Inouye asked whether it would be wise for Congress to make a decision about restructuring the intelligence community in the next 2 weeks. Judge Posner, who is a very erudite professor of law at the University of Chicago in addition to being a Federal circuit judge--he also recently authored a very thoughtful article on intelligence reform in the New York Times--testified he thought it would be ``unwise and most unfortunate.'' He expressed doubts that the analytical problems could be resolved in that timeframe and expressed concerns that the Presidential campaign and politics should not be the right setting for this reform.

I agree with Judge Posner. However, I have approached this legislation as a committee member with an open mind, and I am hopeful that the Senate will move forward on some reforms during this year.

I do have concerns about current efforts to restructure the Nation's intelligence community. For starters, the witnesses I heard last week revealed serious issues with the underlying document for these efforts. That was the 9/11 Commission Report. The Commission's recommendations do not reflect their own account of what happened on September 11. As Judge Posner said before our committee:

The first 338 pages of the commission's report are an

extremely detailed and thorough narrative of the background

to the attacks themselves, and the immediate response.

It is a very fine job. . . . Then after that, the

commission goes off on what is really a different tangent in

considering organizational change because it is not clear,

from reading their narrative, that the problems were

organization[al] problems for which organization[al]

solutions or reorganization would be indicated. So I think

there is a mismatch between this very detailed narrative and

a rather more summary discussion of organizational change

that really does not match the problems that the report

itself had identified.

That is the end of Judge Posner's quote.

Because the Commission's recommendations are somewhat divorced from its own account of what happened on 9/11, the Commission adopts, in my view, a flawed vantage point from which to suggest reforms. For example, one of the concerns Judge Posner expressed in our hearings last week was that the report--and again I quote--

. . . really is oriented toward preventing not new threats,

but a repetition of 9/11. Now, an exact repetition of 9/11 is

extremely unlikely because that has already happened. We know

about that. What I think we have to worry [more] about [is

the threat of] biological terrorism, nuclear terrorism,

agricultural terrorism because, you know, destruction of

agriculture by biological weapons could be as destructive as

biological warfare against people. So we ought to try to

think about the disasters that have not happened, but that is

very difficult to do, so we tend to think about what has

already happened.

That is the end of Judge Posner's comments about that.

As we debate this legislation, one of the things we must keep in mind is there have been substantial changes in our intelligence-gathering methods and operations since 9/11. We personally witnessed those on trips to Afghanistan and Iraq during this past year. The situation we faced in the morning of 9/11 is not the situation we face today, and the threats, although related, are not identical. Efforts to reorganize the intelligence community must take into account the current state of operations and the broad scope of the risks we face. We cannot be mesmerized by just one threat.

As I said, I am not opposed to intelligence reform. But any changes should reflect the current context of intelligence. Since 9/11, many members of the intelligence community have testified before Senate committees, and they have told us they are doing things differently, that today there is a free flow of ideas that did not exist before 9/ 11. Congress should not take any action that might--intentionally or unintentionally--stifle that progress.

I support many aspects of this legislation. I am in favor of the creation of a national intelligence director who can serve as the President's primary intelligence adviser. I also support the creation of a national counterterrorism center. However, I am very concerned about the way the NID's role is defined in this legislation. I urge Members to read it. Read it. Look at the pages. There are nine and a half pages that describe the powers of this person. It would do well for people to understand what it says, what the real context of this is. This person is going to be a very unique individual. What I fear is, this person is going to assemble underneath the NID a series of staff people who will be telling other people what to do based upon their understanding of what the director of NID intended to do. Quoting from the bill:

The National Intelligence Director shall--

determine the annual budget for the intelligence and

intelligence-related activities of the United States by--

providing to the heads of the departments containing

agencies or elements within the intelligence community and

that have one or more programs, projects, or activities with

the National Intelligence program, and to the heads of such

agencies and elements, guidance for development [of] the

National Intelligence Program budget pertaining to such

agencies or elements. . . .

It goes on, all the way through. The national intelligence director is in charge of preparing the annual defense budgets, including those for the Department of Defense related to military intelligence programs, with the concurrence of the Secretary. He would be in charge of ``collection and analysis requirements'' for the entire intelligence community. He is going to have to ``provide advisory tasking on the collection of intelligence to elements of the United States Government having information collection'' activities. He will have the right to go to any Department or agency of the Federal Government and say, ``What are you doing?'' and have access to their information. He will ``manage and oversee the National Counterterrorism Center,'' which, again, I say, I do believe in that type of center, but can he manage that and be a director at the same time?

I urge the Senate to look at the job description of this one person. No person on Earth can do all those things. What he is going to do is assemble a whole series of subordinates who will tell the existing agency heads, many of whom are constitutional officers, Secretaries, confirmed by the Senate, to perform the functions of their Department. But this person is going to have assistants telling those Secretaries what to do and demanding they have access to information those Secretaries have collected through their own processes. Now, I think, if you read this, this is an enormous task for any individual. An NID is needed, but that type of bureaucracy that is set up by this bill is just overwhelming.

He also ensures ``that appropriate officials of the United States Government . . . have access to a variety of intelligence assessments and analytical views,'' protecting ``intelligence sources and methods,'' establishing ``requirements and procedures for the classification of intelligence.''

He is a czar, one person. Now, we know not one person can do all those things. This means to me a new level of bureaucracy, an appointed level, not described in this bill at all. But he is going to have a series of people working for him. I am told there will probably be 800 people in this office of national intelligence director. There is the flaw. There is the flaw, and the President's letter yesterday mentioned it.

This legislation also gives the NID authority to set security, personnel, and informational technology standards all the way across the intelligence

community. In other words, no matter whether you are the FBI, CIA, or DIA, you must follow the standards set by the NID to do your business. Unheard of, just unheard of.

This also includes the establishment and direction over information sharing. This person alone will determine who shares what information. Now, I believe this effort will create more problems than it solves. Judge Posner, again, addressed this in his testimony to our committee last week. He said:

The commission thinks the reason the bits of information

that might have been assembled into a mosaic spelling 9/11

never came together in one place is that no one person was in

charge of intelligence.

He means at that time. But he said:

That is not the reason. The reason, or rather, the reasons

are, first, that the volume of information is so vast that

even with the continued rapid advances in data processing it

cannot be collected, stored, and retrieved and analyzed in a

single database. . . .

That is an objective of this bill. Anyone in the industry will tell you it is not possible yet.

Second, legitimate security concerns limit the degree to

which confidential information can safely be shared,

especially given the ever-present threat of moles like the

infamous Aldrich Ames.

Now, Mr. President, still quoting Judge Posner:

And third, the different intelligence services and the

subunits of each service tend, because information is power,

to hoard it. Efforts to centralize the intelligence function

are likely to lengthen the time it takes for intelligence and

analyses to reach the President, reduce diversity and

competition in the gathering and analysis of intelligence

data, limit the number of threats given serious consideration

and deprive the President of a range of alternative

interpretations of ambiguous and incomplete data--and

intelligence data will usually be ambiguous and incomplete.

That is, again, the end of Judge Posner's comment.

Giving the NID information-sharing authority may actually prove to be counterproductive. The implications Judge Posner raises need full debate and discussion. I hope we will have some of that today. At the very least, we cannot assume that Congress has rectified this problem by simply vesting information-sharing authority in one individual, only one individual, because that is the process for information sharing.

What if, in a later administration, the NID wants more centralized control? What if that person shares the viewpoint of the prior administration that there should be walls between these agencies? He will determine when they learn what is going on between one agency and another. That is the implication of what we are hearing here. We took down the walls with the PATRIOT Act. We said no more walls. Yet here is one person who determines the total rules for sharing. And probably under the current atmosphere, the return to the walls is impossible, but this authority does not prevent walls.

There is no limit on the NID's concept of sharing. That person alone will determine what sharing is between agencies and who gets the information and who has access to it.

I am also concerned about the language in this legislation concerning the structure of the office of NID. I mentioned that before. We don't need to create a new bureaucracy here, and it seems to me this legislation risks doing just that. We need to delete or significantly revise the parts of this bill that delve into unnecessary or excessive detail about the organization of the office of NID. Again, I call the attention of Senators to the bill itself. It has greater detail concerning specific authority for one individual than I have ever seen.

The Statement of Administration Policy, dated September 28, specifically addressed this issue of creating ``a cumbersome new bureaucracy'' or ``legislated mandated bureaucracy will hinder, not help, in the effort to strengthen U.S. intelligence capabilities and to preserve our constitutional rights.''

Continuing from the administration's letter:

The Administration urges the Senate to delete or

significantly revise these problematic provisions.

We will have amendments to do just that at a later time.

I believe we must take time to carefully consider the people in the field now and how this legislation will impact them. I recently had occasion to meet with the chiefs of station of the CIA from around the world. I was most impressed with what they said about how long it takes to establish a position as a chief of station and how long it takes to develop assets who have the willingness and the ability to go into a neighboring country or in the same country they are in and try to obtain the information we need about developments that might threaten our future.

Currently there are 175,000 persons working in the intelligence community. One hundred fifty thousand of them are military personnel today. They do an incredible job with much personal sacrifice, many under difficult circumstances and far away from their families for years. The creation of the NID will have serious consequences for them and the Department of Defense intelligence personnel. The consequences for the Department of Defense intelligence personnel must be carefully considered as we adopt these reforms.

I don't believe you can alter one piece of this puzzle without having an impact somewhere else. I am concerned not only about the impact the legislation will have in terms of unintended consequences of the big picture but also the impact it will have on our career intelligence operatives who are working out in the field today.

I hope to go on to that later. We had a gap in our development of human intelligence, and it was a serious gap for a series of years. It takes more than 5 years to develop one of these people. Now we are operating with a group of human intelligence experts which is very limited.

This legislation says the NID will ``establish intelligence collection and analysis requirements for the intelligence community.'' This arrangement will centralize the prioritization and control of intelligence and, I believe, could detrimentally affect military leaders outside Washington, DC.

The NID would inevitably focus on the current crisis in Washington--I assume, this doesn't say anywhere, that NID will be here, somewhere near the President--possibly shortchanging the long-term collection and analysis needed for intelligence preparation for battlefields in distant regions.

Currently there is a diversity within intelligence. I do believe in a NID, but I believe in more of a coordinator than a commander. This creates a new commander in chief of intelligence. The Constitution didn't create one. I do believe this is a very difficult proposition the way it is described, what the powers and authorities will be.

When combat occurs, intelligence could swing into full force to support the troops, but by then it would be too late. We need a consistent peacetime intelligence effort to ensure that we can either avoid conflict or give U.S. forces high-quality information when they must engage an enemy.

I am also concerned about the nature of the NID position. Right now we have one agency that deals with domestic threats and another that deals with foreign threats. There are reasons for this division.

Domestic and international threats are distinct and require different intelligence tactics and strategies. The NID collapses international and domestic intelligence concerns into one position, one control, one definition authority, and one access authority. I do believe that this is the kind of situation Judge Posner warned us about last week where we would have an intelligence community that is too rough on our citizens or too gentle with foreign threats because it needs to adhere to uniform policies across the domestic and international context. If that is not the intent, the bill should so state.

There is a reason for different approaches to foreign threats than those that are internal within our constitutional authorities. I believe Judge Posner's warning ought to be listened to by the Senate. We do not need an intelligence community that is too rough on our own citizens and too gentle with foreign threats.

I believe the NID position should reflect what Dale Watson, another witness before our committee, recommended last week. He has a long service in the FBI intelligence division. This was his judgment:

This position must be a job and not a position. The

individual who has this responsibility of being the NID needs

to work within the NID and within the intelligence community.

The NID should not be a public relations job. The NID should

not be on the

speaking circuit or conducting liaison. The NID should be a

central-focused individual that looks at where [we] are

across the board in all areas. . . . I think the NID ought to

be a term appointment. I think the NID has to have the

responsibility and be able to do the task.

What we are really saying is, Congress should not rush to implement the recommendations put forth in the 9/11 Commission report. For my part, I hope to spend more time in the Chamber listening to my colleagues and exchanging views on this legislation.

As of now I am inclined to support a course that creates a national intelligence director and a national counterterrorism center, gives them 6 months to get up and running, and then invites them to come and tell those of us in Congress who must make the final decision what additional authorities and changes they actually need. This director ought to become familiar with what we have now before he tries to fix it.

That is one of the things we learned as young men, I thought. If the watch is running and it works, you ought not to try to fix it until you know that there might be some way you can improve it.

This situation is just the opposite. I do think we ought to look forward in this week to a debate that is one that will be productive so that the changes in the administration's letter we received yesterday are not only listened to but they are accommodated to the maximum extent possible.

I have a series of questions that I want to read into the Record. These are questions I intend to ask the managers of these bills as we go through this process. It is a long list of questions, I will say. The first is in regard to military personnel.

Based on the fact there is no differentiation between civilian and military personnel in your bill, could the NID have the power to hold military personnel for more than their stated rotations, more than their career path that they are on? For example, could they hold a military person at the National Counterterrorism Center longer than is detailed from the Department of Defense? If they could, what is the effect on their ability for promotion in the future? If needed for a military mission, how would the Secretary of Defense or one of the service chiefs be able to have that military individual returned to a nonintelligence program or position?

Is it true that once in the NID, the NID has control over the individual person's future, particularly when, I remind the Senate, again, 80 percent of the people we are talking about are Department of Defense people, most of whom have career programs, are on a career path, and part of that path involves being an intelligence official for a period of time?

Also, based on the educational requirements designated for personnel in the national intelligence program by the national intelligence director, how would this be reconciled for those military personnel who must complete military education courses for the advancement of their careers?

Periodically, particularly the officers, and some noncommissioned officers, must complete additional military education courses in order to move upward, have upward mobility in their particular service.

Also, how much control would the DOD have over military personnel assigned to the NID? Would the NID control their assignments and their careers? How would the NID ensure that they have the requisite training and assignments to remain competitive for promotion within their parent military service? What role does the Secretary of Defense have in meeting the statutory responsibilities in title 10 and title 5 for the Armed Forces personnel?

I have heard comments that this new national intelligence director organization could, as I said, be in excess of 800 people. If that is true, it would seem that this legislation will create a new bureaucracy to deal with intelligence.

So I asked the managers directly, how large will the national intelligence director organization be? Does the NID have unlimited ability to hire people? Where would the personnel for such a structure come from? There is already a shortage of intelligence people in the intelligence community. Where are these people going to come from? Is he going to take them from the CIA or the DIA? And if he does, do they lose their career path? Is everybody subject to the control of the NID? Can he tell them you must come? I thought intelligence was a volunteer organization. I think it must be if we are to be successful.

Why does this legislation single out the FBI for the NID's ability to fix the rate of pay? This bill gives only the NID the power to fix the rate of pay for the FBI and the intelligence section. Why doesn't it extend this to all personnel involved if he is to be so powerful? It seems to be a very strange section.

The number of qualified personnel in the intelligence field is fairly limited. Will the creation of the NID and this organization dilute the numbers? How long would it take to build and to grow the additional numbers if they are required in order to create and fulfill the obligations of the director under this reorganization?

I have some questions about the Department of Defense directly. If the national intelligence assets are transferred to a new national intelligence director, how do we ensure to our military commanders that national assets will be reliably available to them before a conflict? They have control under this bill when the conflict comes, when they have the right to obtain their own intelligence. How will the Department of Defense relate to its defense support agencies, such as the NRO, National Reconnaissance Agency, or NSA, or the National Geo spatial-Intelligence Agency, NGA, if they are effectively under the national intelligence agency? Will they still be combat support agencies, subject to the military leaders, as they are now--the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense? Where does this fit in? Will the NID have the power to convert current military positions into civilian positions? Where does he recruit from?

Within this bill, I would like to have an answer as to whether you have altered the definition of ``joint military intelligence programs.'' I do not see such a definition, but it is a very important segment of intelligence.

As to the budget, am I correct in understanding the NID controls the budget of the NSA, NGA, NRO, and that the NID recommends nominees to be directors of these entities, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense? What happens to the current directors? Is this some time off in the future? Can he immediately clear the deck and put new people in charge of the agencies? These agencies, along with DIA, are both national and combat support agencies. How will the proposed bill ensure these agencies remain responsive to the military forces they support if their funding and personnel are controlled by another department?

How does the National Security Advisory and Office of Management and Budget fit into the overall role of coordination or budget coordination envisioned by this legislation?

Particularly, how would the national intelligence director, with strong budgetary and personnel authority and the ability to control the dollars, 85 percent of which are now controlled by the Department of Defense, still maintain a relationship with the DOD? Does it control the whole 85 percent or just the part that is related to the defense agencies specifically mentioned? Currently, I assume the committee knows that the payroll for all of those people comes through the Department of Defense. This assumes, I take it, that the payroll will now come through the budget of the NID. Which ones are you going to pay? Who will make the separation, the Secretary of Defense or NID, as to which ones NID pays and which ones the Department of Defense pays? That is going to be a headache, in my opinion.

The bill provides the national director, in terms of an organization, with the power to reach into other departments to manage personnel, budget, and acquisition programs. Is this on a day-by-day basis, or on the basis of a plan or the formation of a divide-and-command authority? It seems to be that. It seems to be an invitation for turmoil that will cause operational problems as soon as it is created. He is supposed to reach in and tell them I will manage your personnel, your budget, and your acquisitions? A series of things is on the books that envisions particular acquisitions by various agencies over the period ahead. Some of those laws, apparently, will have to

be changed if this person's authority is to be effective, because it will conflict with existing laws, if they are not changed.

How do the benefits of centralization of the intelligence function impact the benefits of diversity and competition in the production of useful intelligence? Does the committee believe that diversity in competition is not needed and that is intended by this bill?

Is it possible to link the national intelligence director to the National Security Council and place it under the control of the national security adviser? Is that possible? Today, the President is in control of those entities within the executive branch, and they are personally responsible to him. That is what the letter we received yesterday says. I hope we think twice about the lines of authority and what are the prerogatives of the President as Commander in Chief and as President of the United States under the Constitution.

Currently, national intelligence priorities are established by the President and the National Security Council. Does a national intelligence director with such powers weaken the NSC process and the roles of the National Security Adviser and the Secretary of State? Will they still have the same role, notwithstanding this national intelligence director is going to have the authority to tell them and make the decisions on what intelligence they need in carrying out their authorities as constitutional advisers to the President?

Could some of the objectives sought by the reorganization be achieved by strengthening the existing institutions? I am not sure that has been considered adequately. That seems to be the compelling rush of the 9/11 Commission--throw everything out and set up something new. There is not even a period for transition in this process. This cannot happen overnight. The reorganization proposed by this bill would take at least a year. During that process, what happens to careers and to people's morale? Why can we not build on what we have, rather than creating something so new that has the extreme power to invade every agency that even touches any piece of intelligence?

Does this legislation create a system in which intelligence is reported to two masters? For example, would the members of the intelligence community be under the control of the national intelligence director and their own agency bosses? I assume that is the case. How does it work on a day-to-day basis if they are not? I assume persons employed by one agency are responsible to the person who hired them. This bill now envisions, I take it, that the NID has the right to hire and fire in any of the agencies involved.

Will the system envisioned by this legislation create conflicts in collection and analysis tasking? Currently, there is a working relationship between these agencies as to who is going to pursue one subject or another, as they task the analysis of information coming in on a daily basis. I don't see why the system creates other conflicts in that process.

The 9/11 Commission report highlighted that there was a lack of information sharing within the intelligence community. But evidence points out this was just as serious within agencies as it was across agencies. How can problems of sharing within agencies be solved by layering another set of controls over all of the agencies?

We ought to think about what happens to the agencies that exist now and how they should transition into this national intelligence director realm, and not assume it is automatically created as soon as the bill is passed.

Would the national intelligence director's role in crafting intelligence policy supplant that of other Cabinet Secretaries? Under this bill, would the Cabinet Secretaries lose their own organic capability to do intelligence analysis? Are we telling the Secretary of State he cannot hire somebody to do intelligence that he thinks he needs? If so, would this undercut Cabinet Secretaries who are constitutional officers of the Government charged with managing the instruments of foreign and security policy for the country?

I do not think we should proceed to create a national intelligence director that has the power to tell those Cabinet Secretaries what they can do in terms of gathering intelligence and analysis.

How would these same Cabinet Secretaries fulfill the constitutional authority vested in them by Congress unless they have the power to make an independent judgment about what is the proper conclusion from the intelligence available to them?

Could the national intelligence director function without having the analytical branch of the CIA placed under his or her direction? I say that again, the only analytical branch we really have is the CIA, and this bill seems to say that the NID gets that analytical branch of the CIA. If it does not, will we have duplicate analytical branches? What is the role of CIA under this concept, as far as analysis is concerned?

If the essential relationship between analysts and operators is weakened, does the operational branch become rudderless and the analytical branch too academic? Would the CIA become an organization for conducting clandestine activities only?

I do not think this bill tells us what we expect from CIA in the future. It says what we expect the NID to do, but it really does not reaffirm the role of any existing agencies that I have defined.

Creating an intelligence czar with domestic surveillance authority that is not under the Attorney General, and measures that separate domestic intelligence from law enforcement, go against all the lessons learned by democratic governments the hard way. What are the concerns and dangers of merging domestic and foreign counterterrorism operations under one organization?

Again, I refer to extensive comments Judge Posner made to us before our committee. How will competing views on intelligence be brought to the President's attention? Indeed, how will competing views merge at all in a structure that is so centralized and under the control of the

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be set aside to allow Senator Lautenberg to propose an amendment and to speak for no longer than 10 minutes, at which time I will return to my amendment.

Mr. President, I believe under the previous unanimous consent agreement that Senator Lautenberg's amendment will be set aside and we will return to the consideration of my amendment.

I also understand that at 2:15 there will be votes as previously ordered.

Mr. President, I would like to use the time between now and the time the vote is ordered to briefly talk about the amendment, but before I do I will say I understand there is controversy associated with this amendment. I do not intend, nor do I believe, that we should hold up the progress of this legislation and I would be more than willing to agree to a time agreement immediately upon completion of the pending votes to give the opponents of this amendment time to consider that.

I would also point out to both proponents and opponents of this amendment this issue is very well known. There may be some Members who are not that familiar with this amendment, but it goes all the way back to 1997 when we had hearings before the Commerce Committee on May 15, 1997, where following the Oklahoma bombing there was, in the view of the witnesses, an urgent requirement to get spectrum to the public safety community as quickly as possible. That was 7 years ago. The same arguments are being used today as were used 7 years ago after the Oklahoma tragedy. So I believe this amendment addresses, as Senator Lieberman and I had committed to do to the families and to the members of the 9/11 Commission, the fact that we would act one way or another on all 41 of their recommendations.

This addresses the following recommendation made by the 9/11 Commission:

Recommendation: Congress should support pending legislation

which provides for the expedited and increased assignment of

radio spectrum for public safety purposes. Furthermore, high-

risk urban areas such as New York City and Washington, D.C.,

should establish signal corps units to ensure communications

connectivity between and among civilian authorities, local

first responders, and the National Guard. Federal funding of

such units should be given high priority by Congress.

What we are talking about is not only addressing the expedited aspect of their recommendation but also increased assignment. That is why, in this legislation, all of those who are presently using analog spectrum would be required by a date certain, December 31, 2008, without exception, without loophole, to move off of the analog to digital spectrum.

To take care of those who are still using over-the-air broadcasting, $1 billion would be set aside from the auction of this spectrum in order to provide the provision of set top boxes for those Americans who are still using over-the-air television as their primary way of receiving television signals. This is a small amount compared to the immense value of the spectrum itself.

This amendment is supported by the 9/11 Commission. I have a letter from them and statement in support of it.

It says:

We write in support of your amendment to S. 2845 regarding

public safety spectrum. Your amendment provides for the

expedited and potentially increased assignment of spectrum

for public safety purposes. By creating a funding mechanism

to aid first responders in the purchase of new equipment, it

also recognizes that spectrum alone is insufficient to

address the deficiencies in public safety interoperability.

In this way, your amendment squarely addresses the needs of

public safety cited in the 9/11 Commission report.

We urge your colleagues to support this amendment, because

it takes significant steps to addressing the urgent needs of

police, fire, emergency medical, and other public safety

agencies. By establishing a firm date of December 31, 2007,

for the return of spectrum long promised to public safety,

your amendment provides much-needed certainty with respect to

access to this spectrum. And by establishing a firm date of

December 31, 2008, for completion of the digital television

transition nationwide, your amendment creates an essential

funding mechanism for the purchase of public safety equipment

using proceeds from the auction of the broadcast analog

spectrum. This latter deadline also ensures that the return

of broadcast spectrum for public safety occurs with minimal

risk of litigation, minimal impact on consumers, and with

maximum flexibility of the Congress to allocate additional

spectrum to public safety if it concludes such an allocation

is necessary.

Finally, we urge the Senate to reject efforts to weaken

your amendment by adding loopholes purporting to offer

``flexibility'' to the assignment of spectrum to public

safety entities. The need for this spectrum is too great; the

stakes are too large; and the time is too pressing to succumb

to efforts to delay these critical measures for first

responders everywhere.

I will talk about the successful efforts orchestrated by the National Association of Broadcasters to delay indefinitely the transition from analog to traditional spectrum. Now that my friend from Montana is in the Chamber, I will quote from a speech he made in 1997, 7 years ago, which basically lays out the same concerns he and the National Association of Broadcasters have today.

It is time we acted. It's time we gave these people the spectrum they deserve. We can do that, along with providing those who are now and will only receive over-the-air television a set top box, which will allow them to receive digital television signals.

Mr. President, I think we are close to 2:15.

I understand, as I said before, that there is controversy associated with this. I will be more than happy to agree to a time agreement, a very reasonable time agreement to debate this issue and vote on this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. President, I would like to discuss my amendment. We are in some discussions right now with other staffs, and hopefully we may have an agreement that would then allow us to agree by voice vote to this amendment. But I want to talk about it because it is a very important issue. It is important to our first responders. It is important to our broadcasters. It is important to public safety.

There is a long history, going back at least to Oklahoma City, that the failure to have the ability to communicate costs the lives of innocent Americans. It really is not any more complicated than that.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter to me from the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-

International, the Congressional Fire Services Institute, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Major County Sheriffs' Association, and the National Sheriffs' Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I will quote from some of the letter. It says:

We are writing to express our strong support for your

proposed amendment to S. 2805 . . . to establish a firm date

to provide additional radio spectrum for our Nation's first

responders.

What is the situation today? The situation today is that there are television stations that are on frequencies, channels 60 through 69, that will remain there forever under the present situation. In other words, in an appropriations bill--not through the Commerce Committee but in an appropriations bill--language was included that said that the broadcasters do not have to achieve a transition from analog to digital until 85 percent of the viewing audience in America had access to HDTV.

In testimony before the committee, Chairman Powell of the Federal Communications Commission said that is never. That is never, he said-- or decades. We have to get this spectrum freed up so we will have it available for all of our first responders so in the case of a disaster or an attack, they will have the ability to communicate with each other.

As the letter points out, in 1997, and that was 7 years ago:

. . . Congress required that certain television broadcast

spectrum be reallocated for public safety use, but limited

access to that spectrum until the uncertain end of the

digital television transition.

The problem is, for 7 years, since we assigned that date, we have not made that transition and, as I stated, if Chairman Powell is correct, we will never make that transition to the point where the analog spectrum would have to be returned.

The letter from these public safety and first responders states:

We urge the Senate to reject amendments to your proposal

that would add uncertainty for public safety spectrum

viability. Without a firm date, State and local governments

will not be able to proceed to plan, fund or construct new

interoperable radio communications systems.

That is the heart of it.

I repeat that the reason I am proposing this amendment is because the 9/11 Commission stated this as one of their urgent recommendations that needed to be acted upon.

I have been made painfully aware over the years of the power and influence of the National Association of Broadcasters. In 1997, they got billions of dollars worth of digital spectrum. They have sat before our committee and promised that by 2003 or 2004 all of it would be returned--all of their analog spectrum would be returned. And, of course, they were able to prevail time after time. I am not going to waste the valuable time of this body describing how they were able to do that. But we are now facing a situation where we have to get this spectrum freed up. We have to do it.

Some will argue it is not enough. We have had testimony before our committee that we need more spectrum for public safety; that we need more for first responders. But right now we don't have enough. Right now. We need to clear this up.

Let me also point out who is sitting on the spectrum channels 60 to 69. Unfortunately, a lot of it is Hispanic television. Some of it is religious broadcasters, and by moving them off that spectrum it obviously would be somewhat discriminatory. The spectrum is being used, as I mentioned, in television broadcasting. This amendment would authorize auctioning off the analog spectrum that is not used and the proceeds from that would be used to purchase set-top boxes for those individuals or families who are still only receiving over-the-air television.

I remind you again why the spectrum is so critical. It is not a new issue. In 1995, the Federal Communications Commission and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration established a Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee to evaluate the needs of Federal, State, and local public safety officials through the year 2010. The committee included distinguished experts from public safety agencies, equipment manufacturers, commercial service providers, and the public at large. This organization filed its report on September 11, 1996, making key recommendations. The first recommendation was stated quite directly: ``More spectrum is required.''

The committee explained, ``In the short term''--talking about 5 years, talking about 1996 when their report was issued--``approximately 25 Megahertz of new Public Safety allocations are needed. The present shortages can be addressed by making part of the spectrum presently used for television broadcast channels 60-69 available as soon as possible.''

That was back in 1996.

Among other recommendations, the PSWAC noted, ``Funding limitations will remain a major obstacle in the adoption of needed improvements in Public Safety communications systems. At a time when government budgets are tight, alternative methods of funding future Public Safety communications systems must be identified. Otherwise the substantial benefits afforded by technology will not be realized.''

The recommendations of this distinguished commission are as true today as they were 7 years ago. And yet we have continued to fail to deliver this spectrum to public safety.

In 1997, I chaired a hearing examining public safety spectrum issues. My committee heard first-hand accounts of the troubles experienced a the Oklahoma City bombing. We heard chilling testimony from Oklahoma City Council Member Mark Schwartz about the day of the bombing. He said, ``We had our trailer command post, the State, the

county, the Feds: We were next door to one another, because we could not communicate in any other way in our crisis.'' He told the story of standing with an FBI agent whose cell phone was not operating. The only way the agent could communicate with Washington was through a friend of Mr. Schwartz in Florida who had two phone lines in his house. The friend used one line to talk to Oklahoma City and the other line to talk to the FBI in Washington. Mr. Schwartz explained, ``You could not use your cell phones, because they were jammed. Southwestern Bell at this time went down. . . . This is why this additional public safety spectrum has to be in place. Because it means saving lives. And I do not care where it is in this country, the public is entitled to it.''

That hearing was 7 years ago. We are no better off today. The 9/11 Commission report made the following observation: ``The inability to communicate was a critical element at the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and Somerset County, crash sites, where multiple agencies and multiple jurisdictions responded. The occurrence of this problem at three very different sites is strong evidence that compatible and adequate communications among public safety organizations at the local, State, and Federal levels remains an important problem.'' Nothing has changed.

What happened during those 7 years? Congress got the message, at least partially, following the PSWAC report. In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress allocated 24 megahertz to public safety. Big win for public safety, right? Wrong. The 24 megahertz was just an empty promise. Why? Because broadcasters insisted on an exception to this requirement. That exception continues to exist today with no end in sight. Under current law, public safety will not receive access to the spectrum until completion of the digital television transition. I asked FCC Chairman Powell at a hearing earlier this month, ``if neither the FCC nor Congress took any further action, when do you think the digital television transition would be complete? He replied, ``decades.''

We cannot wait decades. We cannot stand by while another Oklahoma City or Pentagon or New York incident occurs hoping for broadcasters to act in the best interests of the public rather than the best interest of themselves. We must act now.

The Wall Street Journal characterized the issue quite well on Monday: ``You would think that these days, Congress would be on a terrorism high alert, paying any price to keep the homeland secure. But there's at least one chink in Washington's antiterror resolve, as was evident in the U.S. Senate last week. It involves the broadcasting lobby and the high-stakes politics associated with the transition to digital TV. Most people have heard about big D.C. lobbies like the ones for tobacco and guns. Compared with the broadcasters, though, they're but a few suburban moms writing letters. Multichannel News, a trade paper, says the broadcast industry is `so potent it's considered immune from the laws of political physics.' ''

The article proceeds to describe the SAVE LIVES Act calling it ``an easy and obvious solution.'' But the article aptly describes the fate of the bill last week in the Senate Commerce Committee: ``But the broadcasting lobby liked virtually nothing about the bill, and senators couldn't muscle up the political will to pass it. The Commerce Committee voted 13-9 against the McCain proposal, approving a vastly watered-down alternative. Only four channels would have to be returned by 2008, and even that handover could be delayed indefinitely if broadcasters could persuade the FCC that doing so would cause ``consumer disruption.'' The National Association of Broadcasters, the main lobby group, says it is only concerned about preserving the ability of millions of Americans to watch free broadcast TV; it also says it is moving as quickly as it can toward digital television. Maybe. It's also possible that Congress, in doing the broadcasters' bidding, has managed a striking bifecta: a ridiculous technology policy that leaves it open to the charge of being soft on terrorists.

I ask my colleagues: If there is another disaster--and I pray every single night that there never is--whether it be a terrorist attack, whether it be a natural disaster, with which we are now becoming unfortunately more and more familiar, will we be able to tell the first responders that we have taken every possible action to give them the ability to communicate with one another to save lives?

I hope I can work out an agreement with my friend from Montana, who has a different philosophical view on this issue, which I respect. I hope I can work out an agreement with him so that we can move forward and close this loophole that has been created, at the same time understanding there are legitimate concerns that broadcasters have in arranging for this transition to take place. But we cannot have it be endless.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Burns amendment be proposed as a second-degree perfecting amendment to the McCain amendment.

I think that clears up the parliamentary situation. So we are now considering the Burns second-degree amendment to the McCain amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

That clears up the parliamentary situation.

I thank my friend from Montana. I know how involved he has been on this issue. I was referring back to a hearing we had in 1997 on this issue. I do thank him. This compromise is certainly not what he wanted and it is not what I wanted. I also thank Senator Lott for his good offices in helping, as well as the cooperation of the staffs, as well as that of Senator Hollings and his staff.

Again, this is not what I wanted. This is not what Senator Burns wanted. But this is a way to achieve the primary recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, which is to free up spectrum for first responders.

I will not quote again because I do not have it right here, but it is important we get this spectrum to our public safety and first responders so they will be able to communicate in case of a disaster or attack.

The compromise amendment modifies my proposal by eliminating the requirement that all broadcasters vacate the analog spectrum by a date certain. Significantly, this compromise still provides the certainty that public safety was seeking, that they will receive the spectrum they were promised in 1997 by January 1, 2008.

This was not my preference on how to proceed. I never believed in treating broadcasters differently. However, this amendment does so by requiring broadcasters on channels 62 through 69 to vacate their spectrum if there is a bona fide request made by public safety. The NAB is supporting this amendment and has decided to treat its members differently.

This approach has been agreed to by Senators Burns, Hollings, and myself. Again, it was not my preference to proceed in this discriminatory manner, but in the interest of ensuring passage this year, I thought this was a positive step for public safety. However, I remind my colleagues this disparate treatment should be reviewed by the FCC this year.

The FCC can remedy this discriminating treatment by completing its work toward ending the DTV transition. I urge the FCC to do so. I also urge the incoming chairman, Senator Stevens, and Chairman Barton of the Commerce Committee in the House to review this discriminatory treatment and the DTV transition upon Congress's return in January.

Lastly, I remind my colleagues that this approach does not provide public safety the much needed money for equipment or consumers, a subsidy to ensure all over-the-air viewers can continue to view television. It was not my preference to strand public safety or consumers in this manner. I hope in the near term Congress will readdress this need to support public safety equipment funding. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. President, I do not believe there would be any further debate. I think the Senator from Montana would agree to have a voice vote.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Lieberman I propose an amendment that includes a number of the national preparedness provisions recommended by the 9/11 Commission and is similar to the related proposal we introduced as part of S. 2774 on September 7. It does not address the issue of homeland security grants or spectrum allocation, as those issues will be addressed separately. I believe that this amendment will be non-controversial, and I hope that my colleagues will support it.

One of the lessons that we learned from the terrorist attacks of September 11 is that not only was our country not prepared to prevent the terrorist attacks, but we were not adequately prepared to immediately respond to the attack. One of the fundamental lessons learned is that we need to do more to prepare our first responders and the general public to respond to a terrorist attack.

The stories of the New York City Police Department not being able to communicate with the New York City Fire Department have led serious efforts to increase the amounts of money devoted to increasing interoperability. Lives of the brave men and women of the fire department and the people working at the World Trade Center were lost during the terrorist attacks due, in part, to a lack of communication and the lack of a coordinated strategy to respond to large scale disasters. We must continue to work to ensure that we equip our first responders with the equipment and training necessary to ensure both their safety and their ability to carry out their critical missions.

The Commission's report emphasizes the importance of teamwork, collaboration, cooperation, and the involvement of key decisionmakers. Their recommendations build upon these themes. The report recommends that emergency response agencies nationwide should adopt the Incident Command System to ensure that there is a command structure in place when responding to an emergency. This amendment expresses the Sense of Congress that the Secretary for Homeland Security require homeland security grant applicants aggressively implement the ICS and unified command systems. The amendment also would follow the Commission's recommendation to remedy the long-standing liability and indemnification impediments to the provision of mutual aid in the National Capital Region.

Consistent with the recommendations, the amendment also would direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to work with the Federal Communications Commission, the Secretary of Defense, and State and local government officials to encourage and support the establishment of consistent and effective communications capabilities in the event of an emergency in a high-risk urban area. The Secretary is also directed to work with the Secretary of Defense to plan for supplying additional back-up communications support in the event of an emergency.

As pointed out by the 9/11 Commission, the private sector controls approximately 85 percent of the critical infrastructure in the Nation, and the report therefore places particular emphasis on the importance of private sector preparedness. The Commission report endorses the American National Standards Institute, ANSI, and National Fire Protection Association, NFPA, voluntary Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs. The amendment would direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a program to promote private sector preparedness for terrorism and other emergencies, including urging companies to adopt this ANSI/NFPA standard.

In striving to protect our Nation from the threat of terrorism, we must continuously analyze our weaknesses and prepare for the threats of the future. This amendment directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to fulfill this important responsibility by reporting to Congress regularly on his work to complete vulnerability and risk assessments, and the adequacy of the government's plans to protect our Nation's critical infrastructure.

As our Nation continues to stand vigilant against the threats of future terrorist attacks, this amendment takes on additional meaning. Despite all the work done since September 11, it is likely that we will be struck by terrorists again. We must continue to work to ensure that we are ready to respond to any attack. This amendment strives to get us closer to that goal.

Again, I believe that this amendment should be noncontroversial, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I thought the agreement was 30.

If the distinguished chairman will yield, I am not sure of the timeframe. I think my remarks will be approximately 30 minutes. I hope they will not go over 30 minutes. But that would be my goal.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Specter amendment. Before I begin, I would like to commend the managers of the bill, Senators Collins and Lieberman, for their extraordinary patience and their hard work as we continue working through this process. Senators Collins and Lieberman are very prominent and hard-working Senators. They have been given a very tough assignment and a limited timeframe in which to complete it. Nevertheless, they have produced a bill which is a step in the right direction.

As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I look forward to working with the Senators who serve on the committee of assignment by the leadership as the Senate attempts to make intelligence reform a reality.

Simply put, the Specter amendment would give the national intelligence director, or what we call now the NID, the authority to direct and supervise and control our national intelligence collection agencies. In doing so, it will create a clear chain of command that will leave no doubt in anybody's mind that the national intelligence director is in charge and is accountable.

There is no rush to judgment on this issue. The debate in which we are currently engaged is the same debate that has been going on for decades, centered on how to grant increased authority to the Director of Central Intelligence, or a new national intelligence director, while leaving undisturbed the intelligence community's structural status quo. Time and time again, those who have struggled with this conundrum have found we simply can't get there from here under that context. In other words, I believe it takes significant organizational change to overcome the inherent conflicts in the current structure of our national intelligence community.

True empowerment requires a national intelligence director with both budget authority and the authority to direct and control the activities of the intelligence collection agencies. One without the other will once again leave us with an intelligence head who can neither succeed nor be held fully accountable.

Let me state that the bill reported by the Governmental Affairs Committee does address the question of budget authority very effectively. It is significant and well contained. The bill leaves unaddressed, however, the issue of the national intelligence director's authority to direct, to supervise, and control the activities of our national intelligence collection agencies.

In short, the bill, in my opinion, preserves divided loyalties inherent in the current structure. Why is it so difficult to give this new NID direct control over all of the intelligence community agencies? It is no secret. The issue centers on the fact that the National Reconnaissance Office, which designs and acquires our spy satellites, the National Security Agency, which collects our signal intelligence, and the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, which processes and disseminates our satellite imagery, all fall under the direct control of the Secretary of Defense.

These agencies, while essential to the collection of national intelligence, have also been deemed essential to the Pentagon's ability to fight and to win wars. In essence, these agencies serve two masters: The head of the intelligence community and the Secretary of Defense. This tension has existed for decades, and it continues today. As long as the Secretary of Defense directs the day-to-day activities of these agencies, the new national intelligence director will continue to struggle with a structure that undermines his ability to succeed as the head of the intelligence community.

It appears to me that under today's bill the national intelligence director's authority concerning collection will be about the same as the DCI's has been for over 50 years. I do not mean to be a pessimist, but history has shown in practice that these authorities to ``establish requirements,'' ``manage the collection task,'' and ``resolve the conflicts'' have limited ability when an agency works with the Secretary of Defense and not for the head of the intelligence community.

Why has it been so difficult to streamline the chain of command in the intelligence community? Because when the Defense Department comes up on the radar screen and announces to Congress and the media that its ability to defend America will be undermined if it loses direct control over its intelligence agencies, Members of Congress rightfully pause and they certainly take note. This is especially true today when American forces are engaged in combat. This, however, should not lead to what we call paralysis.

During this debate, we have heard a great deal about support to our dedicated, brave men and women in uniform, i.e., the warfighters. Many of my colleagues have argued and will continue to argue that the national intelligence director must not be allowed to direct and supervise the control of activities of our national intelligence collection agencies. In their view, granting such an authority would undermine the Secretary of Defense's ability to fight and win wars. For this to be true, the national intelligence director would have to deny our military commanders the information they need to wage war. I cannot conceive of any circumstance where that would be the case.

I am a member of the Armed Services Committee. I am a former Marine officer. I would not sanction any legislation that I thought would limit the ability of our troops to fight and to win wars. I recognize the special requirements of the Department of Defense. As chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I also know that the Department of Defense is only one of the major consumers of intelligence. Important, yes; major, yes; but one.

I often hear people referring to the Department of Defense as the principal consumer of intelligence. While the Department is a significant and important consumer of intelligence, we need

to remember one thing: The principal consumers of intelligence are the President of the United States, the Congress, and the National Security Council. They are the principal consumers. The Department of Defense is a major consumer.

In time, the Department of Homeland Security is likely to become a voracious consumer of intelligence, perhaps on a par with the Department of Defense.

I do not believe the defense of the homeland is any less important than prosecuting the war. Consequently it does not make sense to have 80 percent of our intelligence collection apparatus controlled by one consumer, and that is the Department of Defense.

If we give the national intelligence director the authority to manage all of the national collection agencies, that will ensure one office is responsible and accountable for meeting the intelligence requirements of all consumers including, of course, that of the Department of Defense. If any Cabinet member believes their intelligence requirements are not being met, he or she can address the issues to the national intelligence director. If a Cabinet member does not agree with NID's decision, they can take it up with the President of the United States.

I also note that in testimony before Congress, the directors of two of the Pentagon's intelligence collection agencies--the National Security Agency and the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency--stated that having their agencies transferred to the control of a national intelligence director would not degrade their level of support to the military.

Let me repeat that. The directors of two of the Pentagon's intelligence collection agencies--the National Security Agency and the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency--stated that having their agencies transferred to the control of a national intelligence director would not degrade their level of support to the military.

Additionally, some have argued that giving the national intelligence director line control of agencies with uniformed military personnel would be complicated. There will certainly be some issues to be resolved, to be sure. But the Department of Defense regularly details military personnel to agencies and offices outside of the Department of Defense. We would not be breaking new ground here. We have had civilian control of the military since the founding of this Nation, and I don't see how civilian control by a national intelligence director is qualitatively different than civilian control by the Secretary of Defense. They both work for the President.

There has been a lot of talk about that fact in regard to meetings we have had with people in uniform and the Secretary of Defense and a certain Senator asking, How would you feel if your budget was controlled by somebody who didn't wear a uniform? Well, the Secretary of Defense doesn't wear a uniform. When the military appears before the Congress, they don't wear a uniform. Neither does the Secretary of Army, Navy, or Air Force wear a uniform.

Let me detail a few examples to illustrate why direct control is so important to the success of the national intelligence director.

As recently as last week--I would like for Members to pay attention to this--as recently as last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee received a very troubling briefing in closed session that clearly demonstrated that even on matters relating to the terrorist threat to our homeland, today, now, the terrorist threat that we face, the intelligence agencies still stubbornly refuse to adequately share information. Why are these agencies still not sharing? Some progress has been made. But why are they still not sharing? Is it because the DCI doesn't have adequate budget authority? No. They don't share it because they work for 15 different bosses and no one holds them accountable for information sharing. The national intelligence director can cajole, he can plead, he can consult all he wants; he can promulgate policies and guidelines all day long. He can create grand, trusted information networks. But without a national intelligence director with direct control, there will be no one to force adequate information sharing within the intelligence community.

Let us take another example.

We have all heard former DCI Tenet's now famous declaration of war against al-Qaida in 1998. Mr. Tenet ordered that no resource was to be spared in this critical effort. He declared war as a result of Osama bin Laden issuing fatwas to kill Americans.

What happened as a result of this bold order? Not much. The National Security Agency went its own way, saying: Thank you, Mr. DCI, for your interest in national security, but we are going to retool for a threat that has nothing to do with terrorism.

What would have happened if Mr. Tenet had the authorities granted to the national intelligence director under the Collins-Lieberman bill when he made his 1998 declaration? He might have said: We are at war, and the NSA will see that reflected in the budget you will receive in the next year or so, assuming Congress does not make any changes to it. That is budget authority. That is the crowbar he would use in terms of influence. However, with the authorities to direct, supervise, and control, which are provided in the Specter amendment, Mr. Tenet would have been able to order the NSA to stop retooling for the other threat, get to work that day, focus their efforts on al-Qaida. In the 21st century, threats evolve too quickly to wait a year or so for the national intelligence director's budget change to have any effect. The NID must have direct control in order to make immediate changes.

The bill before the Senate today is a significant step in the right direction. Credit goes to Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman. There are many good provisions in the bill which should improve the intelligence community, but it is missing something very important--a clear chain of command and accountability.

As the examples I have cited demonstrate, a clear chain of command and accountability that comes with it are essential to real and lasting reform. If we do not make the hard choices now, I fear after yet another series of intelligence failures--and Lord knows I do not want to sit as chairman of the Intelligence Committee and have any more ``Oh my God'' hearings in regard to past tragedies from Khobar Towers to embassy bombings to the Khartoum chemical plant to the failure to even try to come as close as possible to predicting the India nuclear blast, Somalia, the USS Cole, and obviously September 11. We do not want to go back down that road.

I fear the Senate Intelligence Committee will be right back in its hearing room listening to the newly minted national intelligence director testify while he enjoys a great deal of budget authority he still lacks the real authority to perform the day-to-day operations of our intelligence agencies and therefore lacks ability to lead as we expect and as he must. I urge my colleagues to support the Specter amendment so there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the national intelligence director is in charge and is accountable.

I will take a few more moments to comment on some of the debate I have heard concerning this amendment. This is not a new debate. What I heard in the Senate yesterday and today represents an age-old tension that has existed since the intelligence community was created.

Certainly, I would be more than happy, in the middle of shining the light of truth into darkness, to yield for a unanimous consent request.

If the Senator will yield, may I ask if the 21 amendments I have drafted, amendments that would improve the nature of the bill, are they included in that list?

What I heard in the Senate yesterday in regard to comments on this debate represents an age-old tension that has existed since the intelligence community was created.

Members heard numerous quotes from statutes such as title 10, title 50. The heart of this debate, however, is whether we will give an individual unambiguous control of intelligence activities in the United States. We can quote from the United States Code all day. The point is the laws could be changed. That is what we do in the Congress. The debate today is about what the law should be, not what the law is. Arguing the status quo is convenient, but it is not always correct.

This bill gives the new national intelligence director one very good tool. It is called budget authority. It does not give him control. The Specter amendment gives the national intelligence director control, which means accountability and real reform.

As we have debated this issue, I have heard many Members cite the words and reported opinions of the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Commission has done a great service to this country, but the Commissioners themselves have made it clear they do not have all the answers.

The 9/11 Commission did produce an excellent study of the failures leading

up to the attacks of September 11. The Governmental Affairs Committee bill is faithful to the lessons the Commission drew from its work. It is an excellent report. But I remind my colleagues that the Commission's report was based on a single case study--the period leading up to the attacks of September 11. However, a broader historical examination of our intelligence community leads many-- including this Senator--to the important conclusion that over the last 50 years, the intelligence community has drifted due to the lack of or absence of a clear chain of command and the lack of accountability that a clear chain of command can bring. That clear chain of command requires giving the national intelligence director the authority to direct, to control, and to supervise our national collection agencies.

Our job is not to take the work of the 9/11 Commission as a sacred text which is not to be questioned or altered; our job is to take their work and integrate it with the lessons learned over the 50-plus years of history of our intelligence community and nearly 30 years of congressional oversight by the Intelligence Committee. As the Senator from Pennsylvania has pointed out, his amendment incorporates many of those lessons.

Yesterday, I also heard Members argue that the Specter amendment would create confusing chains of command for the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency, and the intelligence collection elements of the Defense Intelligence Agency. I respectfully disagree.

In addition to providing the national intelligence director with the authority to direct, supervise, and control these agencies, the Specter amendment clarifies other provisions of law to specifically address this concern. It amends title 10 and title 50, adds two new provisions to the law to specifically clarify that the Directors, again, of the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and the intelligence collection elements of the Defense Intelligence Agency report directly to the national intelligence director.

While this amendment gives the national intelligence director direct control over these agencies, they remain ``combat support agencies''-- nobody quarrels with that--and the Secretary of Defense will still have influence over them. That is by design. No one is trying to change that. I think it is much better than the bill's current language in which the Secretary of Defense has direct control of these agencies, and the NID only has influence and persuasion. I can tell you from past history, influence and persuasion do not get you very far at the Pentagon.

Some have argued that only the Secretary of Defense can manage the combat support agencies. Some argue that only if the Secretary of Defense manages the Pentagon's national intelligence collection agencies will the warfighter receive adequate support. This is a fallacy. As I said earlier, there is no reason to believe the Defense Department will not receive the support it needs if the Pentagon's national intelligence collection agencies report to the national intelligence director.

The amendment provides the Secretary of Defense with important feedback mechanisms to make sure the Department is getting the national intelligence support it needs.

First, the Secretary of Defense is required to provide the national intelligence director with some performance appraisals for the directors of the national intelligence collection agencies. Second, the national intelligence director will receive recommendations from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff based upon a biannual review of the combat support plans for the National Security Agency; again, the National Reconnaissance Office; again, the National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency; and the DIA, again, the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Working with the Secretary of Defense through these feedback mechanisms, the national intelligence director will ensure that the Defense Department's intelligence needs are met. Clearly, this amendment recognizes the important support role these agencies play to the Department of Defense in its role as an intelligence consumer.

Now, I also heard the argument yesterday that giving the national intelligence director direction, supervision, and control of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency is a bad idea because that agency is responsible for making maps. I point out that this agency used to be named the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, but they changed its name to signal a change in the manner in which it would perform its mission.

The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, or the NGA, uses intelligence data acquired by satellites and other means and melds that data into the maps that our entire Government uses. This is what is now called geospatial intelligence. The maps we use have the full benefit of the intelligence data we gather all around the world. Mapmaking is not inconsistent with the national intelligence director's mission.

Another argument heard yesterday against the Specter amendment was that the 9/11 Commission had considered granting the NID direction, supervision, and control authorities but rejected the idea on the grounds that the duties of managing these agencies would overload the national intelligence director. However, I note that the Secretary of Defense controls the military services, the Reserves, the unified commands, the defense agencies, field activities, literally millions of uniformed and civilian personnel, and those who mow the yard outside the Pentagon.

So if I understand correctly, in order not to overburden the national intelligence director, we will leave the national intelligence collection agencies under the control of an already extremely busy and, I might add, effective Secretary of Defense. This logic escapes me.

I also heard an argument that the 9/11 Commission had rejected granting the national intelligence director greater authorities because the Commissioners preferred what was described on the Senate floor as a ``lean, mean modern corporate structure.''

I ask my colleagues, What successful modern corporation would not give its chairman and CEO the authority to direct, supervise, and control every component of the organization for which he or she was held accountable by the shareholders? We should not confuse direction, supervision, and control with micromanagement.

I also heard the argument that the Specter amendment would promote group-think within the intelligence community. Well, I can tell you that the Senate Intelligence Committee wrote the book on the occurrence of group-think in its report on the prewar assessments on Iraq's WMD programs.

It is a problem that we on the committee watch very carefully every week, almost every day. I do not believe the Specter amendment will promote any kind of group-think. I would be concerned about the risk of group-think if we were proposing to grant the national intelligence director the authority to direct, supervise, and control the analytical content of our national analytical agencies. That is not what Senator Specter's amendment proposes. It proposes direction, supervision, and control over the Department of Defense's national intelligence collection agencies.

Additionally, as was seen in the committee's examination of the prewar assessments--as I say, it took us over a year, 22 professional staff members; we interviewed over 220 analysts--the creation of a strong national intelligence director will prevent group-think in the intelligence community. A strong director will ensure a level playing field in which the analysis of all agencies will be given full consideration and equal consideration based upon the quality of the analysis when intelligence community assessments are being developed. If anyone has studied the committee's Iraq report--and I encourage Senators to read it, 511 pages--they know that the lack of a level playing field was a major problem.

Mr. President, with that I am going to conclude my remarks. I urge Members to support the Specter amendment.

The Specter amendment has been described as a ``bridge too far.'' This well-known term is a product of the tragic Battle of Arnhem, Holland, in 1944.

Many historians see the tragedy of Arnhem as a combination of errors, i.e., the undertaking, for some political

reasons, of an ill-advised military campaign opposed by American commanders; i.e., and a massive intelligence gap that failed to detect a large concentration of German armor in the area.

Mr. President, the ``bridge too far'' analogy is apt, but it cuts in favor of the Specter amendment. We must not, for political reasons, fail to make the hard decisions that are necessary to ensure a strong, in-charge national intelligence director.

These decisions are difficult. They are hard. But these decisions are critically needed. The changes we make today have one overarching goal: to prevent another intelligence failure on the order of Arnhem and September 11. Because of those failures, the allies suffered 17,000 casualties and, obviously, on September 11, 3,000 died.

Failure to approve the Specter amendment may be seen by historians as a tragic half-measure that led to another Arnhem or another September 11.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I also rise to oppose this amendment by the Senator from Pennsylvania. This is, as Senator Collins has indicated, a matter we discussed in what I thought was a very thoughtful discussion in our committee deliberation on a similar amendment.

There are good arguments on both sides. The objective here is to balance the independence we want our national intelligence director to have with the importance of having a trusting relationship with the President of the United States. In the end, I concluded it would be wrong to give a fixed term to the national intelligence director for the reason to which I just heard Senator Collins refer.

Remember, we have given the national intelligence director two main responsibilities. One is to administer the intelligence community. The other is to be the principal intelligence adviser to the President of the United States. In fact, one could argue, although the national intelligence director as administrator has many customers, if you will, for intelligence, the No. 1 customer is the President of the United States as President and certainly as Commander in Chief. So that is a relationship that must be a trusting relationship.

The danger is that an incoming President will be given someone in whom he does not have that kind of confidence. Unfortunately, history-- recent history--gives us an example of that, without attributing blame. President Clinton and then-Director of the FBI, Mr. Freeh, had a relationship that was not mutually confident, and, therefore, he had somebody in that critical position who had very little contact with the President of the United States. He was Director of the FBI, not the principal personal intelligence adviser in the sense of giving advice personally to the President of the United States.

The concern about the independence of the national intelligence adviser is an important one. I feel very strongly that in this bill Senator Collins and I offer, and our committee offers to the Senate, we have done a lot to protect the independence of the national intelligence director.

For instance, contrary to the original proposal of the 9/11 Commission, which proposed that this office of the national intelligence director be in the White House, we said no, that may raise questions and in fact problems with regard to the independence of the NID if he or she is just down the hall from the President. That ought to be out of the Executive Office of the President and established as an independent agency.

We went well beyond that in a title particularly that was added in our committee, most of the work of which was done by Senator Levin, which is all about the independence of the office, the objectivity of the intelligence that the adviser, the director gives to the President, to the country, to the agencies he serves, independence even to the extent that we say the national intelligence director should be like the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in this sense: that he does not need administration approval to testify before Congress, does not need his testimony cleared, if you will, by the OMB.

So there is a lot built in here that is meant to guarantee, as best a statute can, the independence of this office, without hamstringing--if that is the right phrase here--a President with a national intelligence director in whom he does not have trust or in whom he loses trust as time goes on.

But this is that critical a position. I would not want to give a national intelligence director a set term any more than I would want to give a Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Director of OMB, or National Security Adviser fixed terms. These are positions that must every day be filled by people who enjoy the confidence and trust of the President of the United States.

For that reason, I oppose the amendment and urge our colleagues to do so as well.

Madam President, first let me say to Senator Specter that he is quite right, we do, much more often than not, agree on matters. Unfortunately this amendment is not one of them, notwithstanding the arguments he just made.

There is an interesting historical note we are familiar with that when the 10-year term for the FBI Director came into effect, I was not here, but I gather it was as a matter of reform as against the effective lifetime term that the former Director, Mr. Hoover, had. So that was in that reality.

Here is the circumstance I am worried about. We have done everything we can in this bill to create independence in the national intelligence director position and to set standards that say: You have to level with the President. The worst thing that can happen is if you feel you have to create a good personal relationship and satisfy policy desires. In fact, we have language in here that is quite remarkable that says the national director ``must provide intelligence to the President that is timely, objective, independent of political consideration, and based on all sources available to the intelligence community, information that has not been shaped to serve policy considerations, that comes from a variety of intelligence assessments and analytical views.''

I am quoting directly from our proposal.

We have set up the office of ombudsman, a very unusual office, and, thanks to a combination of Senator Rockefeller and Senator Shelby, created within it an analytical review unit which will do a kind of quality control on the work of the intelligence director, again to try to ensure that there is a real independence and objectivity and willingness to speak the truth.

The situation I would worry about, if we have a director for a fixed year term of 10 years, would be that the President simply loses confidence in that director for one reason or another. So on critically important questions such as we have seen in our time--do you send American troops into combat, what foreign policy do we adopt toward threatening nations such as Iran and North Korea--if you have a President lacking confidence or trust, and it could be in the competence of the individual or in his or her dispassion or objectivity, you leave the President either without adequate intelligence advice on matters of great national importance or you encourage the President to end-run the national intelligence director, go directly to the head of the CIA and other agencies. That is not a healthy situation.

Of course, it totally undercuts exactly what we are trying do to do, which is to create a national intelligence director who will oversee the total intelligence community. For those reasons, in this situation, I continue to oppose the Specter amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, if I may answer the question, my hope is--and I believe it is the chairman's hope--that we will stay on the bill and people will come over and introduce more amendments, that we have more debate between now and 2:15.

Absolutely.

If the chairman will yield, these are very important questions the Senator from Ohio is raising. I want to assure him, first, that we raised the same questions during our committee's deliberation, including meetings with the heads of these national intelligence agencies that are within the Department of Defense. The Senator from Ohio is undoubtedly aware of the reality, which is that the current Director of Central Intelligence has the authority under law to convene a committee, an interagency committee, which every day apparently makes, as one witness said to us, thousands of decisions about where our signal intelligence and image intelligence assets go. In fact, one of the heads of an agency said he didn't remember a time when there was an inability to agree. There is also, clearly,

in the end, both in current law, as I understand it, and in the proposal we are making, if the rare situation occurs, you have to have somebody in power to make that decision. Now it is the CIA. Under our proposal, it would be the national intelligence director.

If the Senator will yield, if I may respond. I want to refer the Senator to page 14 of our bill in section 4, enumerating the powers of the national intelligence director. We say ``establish collection and analysis requirements for the intelligence community to determine collection and analysis priorities, issue and manage collection analysis tasking, and resolve conflicts in the tasking of elements of the intelligence community within the national intelligence program, except as otherwise agreed with the Secretary of Defense pursuant to the direction of the President.''

So this is language that completely mirrors existing statute for the Director of Central Intelligence. From testimony we heard, it is fortunately working very well that the conflicts, by the testimony of at least one head of one of the agencies, just do not occur; they work it out.

Perhaps it was my language that was confusing. I do not think the statutory language is.

The fact is, there is an addition of authority to the NID--there is no question about that--that the DCI does not have, and that is to issue and manage collection and analysis tasking.

What I was trying to say earlier, and I want to distinguish this, is the current law enables the DCI to convene the agency representatives, which they do every day, to resolve and decide where our national assets go, and then to resolve a conflict, as described in the language that I read from, which is what the current DCI has.

We have added, very importantly, and the Senator is right, the ability of the national intelligence director additionally to issue and manage collection and analysis tasking.

Madam President, before the Senator from Ohio leaves the floor, I want to thank him. Although we disagree on the Specter amendment, his questions have illuminated the details of the underlying Governmental Affairs Committee proposal in a way that I as one of the sponsors feel shows a balance, which is we are trying to do something the 9/11 Commission says we urgently and desperately need to do, which is to fill the gap where the Commission said there is no one in charge of America's intelligence today--a lot of great assets but no one in charge. It is like an army without a general or a football team without a quarterback.

So we are creating a national intelligence director. We are giving that position, that strength, which the current director of Central Intelligence doesn't have. We are separating that position from the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. But we are not giving the director line authority over the constituent agencies. He is going to be there to call the plays, if you will, to resolve conflicts, to make sure all the assets of the intelligence community--here we do have totally shared goals--are serving the national interest and all of the customers of the intelligence community and, most importantly, serving the President of the United States who represents the national interest, but not in control with line authority over the constituent agencies.

As has been said, we think that will make, and the 9/11 Commission said it will create, a top-heavy organization. We don't need to do it.

I am quoting Secretary of State Powell's statement which he made to us on September 13 when he testified at a hearing. He said:

The director of central intelligence was there before but the DCI did not have that kind of authority.

I add parenthetically that is the authority we are giving the national intelligence director.

Colin Powell said:

In this town, it is budget authority that counts. Can you

move money? Can you set standards for people? Do you have the

access needed to the President? The NID will have all of

that. I think this is a far more powerful player, and that

will help the State Department.

There is a substantial transformation of what exists now. But it doesn't remove day-to-day control over operations from the individual departments. It is that balance that is part of the strength of our proposal, I submit to my colleagues. There are those on both sides who are unhappy about our balance. Senator Specter is stating it much too simplistically and we didn't go far enough to give power to the NID, so his amendment would effectively create a secretary of intelligence with line control over all the constituent parts of the intelligence community.

There will be other amendments from people who feel we have gone too far, particularly with regard to the Department of Defense, because in fact we do change budget control authority from the Department of Defense to the national intelligence director, to strengthen that position for exactly the reason Secretary Powell says, acknowledging that the intelligence director serves the President and the entire Government insofar as Government agencies need good intelligence, including the State Department. And the Secretary effectively said to us, he explicitly said, he is confident that the State Department will get more and better intelligence which it needs to advise the President on the conduct of our foreign policy. It is critical. Obviously, the needs for the Defense Department and warfighters are also critical, but they are not the only ones who need intelligence in our Government. The new director will, I think, better be able to satisfy all of those customers for the best possible intelligence.

I think it has been a helpful debate. I hope our colleagues who are not on the floor are keeping an ear to the debate, or at least their staff is, because it reminds me of some of the debates we had in the Governmental Affairs Committee which ultimately led us to a point where there were many disagreements along the way, with almost 50 amendments filed, where the bill was reported out of committee on a nonpartisan vote, unanimous vote.

I don't have explicit hopes that will happen in the full Senate, but I look forward to as thoughtful an exchange as we have just had, leading to a resounding vote for the kind of transformational reform of our intelligence community that the 9/11 Commission recommends, which we all know is desperately needed as soon as possible to better protect the American people from the clear and present danger of terrorist attacks.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I also urge opposition to the Specter amendment. The fact is, our committee has found a balance. We have created someone in charge of the intelligence community who is not there now, giving that person the authority Senator Collins has referred to, but leaving line control over the agencies of the intelligence community, including the Department of Defense, within the Department of Defense and those existing agencies.

The fact is, this amendment goes too far and goes too far politically because if this amendment should pass, this bill is not going to go anywhere in the House, and we will end up leaving ourselves vulnerable.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I join with the Senator from Mississippi in thanking and congratulating Senator McCain and Senator Burns for this agreement. I also thank Senator Lott for his part in securing this agreement. I know he was very helpful. They really reached not only an amicable but a meaningful compromise on how to accomplish one of the goals of the 9/11 Commission, which in its report describes the consequences of the inability of public safety officials to communicate at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania.

The Commission recommended, specifically, that the Congress ``support pending legislation which provides for the expedited and increased assignment of radio spectrum for public safety purposes.''

Senator McCain offered an amendment. The potential existed not only for disagreement about it but for very long debate which would have made it hard for the Senate to move forward expeditiously on the urgent underlying legislation. Senator Burns and Senator McCain have reached an agreement which is meaningful. It gets something done. I might say, I hope and believe that it may set a precedent for other amendments pending.

There are a lot of people who have said we face some intractable issues on this bill, but here we see clear evidence we can work through these issues and, in that sense, set a precedent for how we can work through the other pending issues on this bill.

I thank everyone involved. I will strongly support the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3774

Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment with Senator McCain. It is part of legislation that we introduced early in September, along with Senators Specter and Bayh and others, to implement all the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. This definitely complements the core of the proposal that Senator Collins and I and the members of the Governmental Affairs Committee made to the full Senate.

The underlying bill would make historic changes to reform our intelligence community to do the best job we possibly can of knowing where our terrorist enemies are, what they are planning, and to strike at them before they can strike at us based on that intelligence.

We have to be prepared for occasions when terrorist attacks may succeed. That is exactly what this measure is all about. It is preparing our local communities to join in the prevention of attacks and then to improve the public and private infrastructures to be ready to respond in the best possible way.

The 9/11 Commission recognized that even big cities with first responders and public service systems that are highly well regarded can be overwhelmed by a terrorist attack as we saw on September 11. That is why this amendment would encourage people to come together, to work together to coordinate the capabilities of each of their communities into a greater unified force.

This amendment would, therefore, help promote integrated emergency command systems that give an array of response agencies at the local level clear roles and leadership in the event of a crisis.

Specifically, it encourages the Department of Homeland Security to condition its terrorism preparedness grants on evidence that the communities are adopting a so-called incident command system, a coordinated system which I have seen in effect in communities in Connecticut and around the country.

The amendment also calls on the Department of Homeland Security to help create emergency community capabilities in urban areas that are most likely to be targeted for terrorist attacks. This is the complement to the agreement between Senators McCain and Burns we just adopted.

Finally, the amendment urges the Secretary of Defense to regularly report on the plans and strategies of NORTHCOM, the northern command, the new command designed to defend, through the military, the U.S. homeland. We want to know more about the role envisioned for NORTHCOM, to ensure that the unique capabilities of the DOD are well organized, prepared, and available should the President need to activate them for the defense of our homeland.

Together these provisions are going to bolster our defenses against terrorism, even as the underlying bill--if I can put it this way--works to strengthen our offense, which is the offense of the best, most coordinated intelligence system we can have.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Before I yield the floor, if there is no further debate, I believe this is a noncontroversial amendment, though a substantial one, and I urge its adoption.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman. That is certainly my hope. I am grateful that all the parties have come together about this amendment. I think we have a solution that doesn't create another board but does realize the goals that Senator Wyden and the other bipartisan sponsors of the amendment have, to have a reasonable means of asking for a second look, if I can put it that way, at a classification decision made by the executive branch with regard to congressional access to intelligence information. I am very pleased about that and I hope we can get the language here and do it this afternoon.

I also say to our colleagues how important is the announcement made earlier today by the bipartisan leadership, Senator Frist and Senator Daschle. I hope people will respond to it. First, I thank the two of them for the extent to which they have worked in support of the effort Senator Collins and I are making and that they are together in support of the effort, which is exactly the standard that needs to be set as we work on this critical national security matter.

Second, there is a clear message, which is that Senator Frist and Senator Daschle may together move to invoke cloture unless there is a steady movement of Senators to the floor introducing their amendments, because there is an excessive--there is an indication of an intention to file over 200 amendments. Senator Frist has made clear that we are not going to depart from Washington until we finish this bill and take action on the report of the working group, led by Senators McConnell and Reid, with regard to reform of congressional oversight of intelligence, as urged on us by the 9/11 Commission.

I am very grateful for that statement of policy by the leadership. We ought not leave here until the Senate completes its work on these two critically important matters. These are urgent. There would simply be no excuse to our constituents, to the American people at large, to have left for political campaigns while the Nation is under clear and present danger of terrorist attack, with a certain unsettling imminence suggested as we lead up to our national elections.

I join with Senator Collins in thanking our colleagues who have come to the floor with amendments; those, as was the case with Senators McCain and Burns, who worked out a very significant and real compromise on what could have been a long distraction on the road to adopting our proposal.

I hope people will now come to the floor. We will be here for a while more today. Obviously, we will be here tomorrow. Leadership told us we will be here Friday and Monday. The sooner we get these amendments in and consider them and dispose of them, the sooner we are going to pass this bill, move on to legislative reform, and recess.

With thanks for the pace we are setting so far and for the support we are receiving, I urge Members who have amendments to come to the floor and offer them at this time. We are open for business.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, along with a very impressive bipartisan group of cosponsors, introduced an amendment of real import 2 days ago. We said we would try very hard to work it out. I am quite delighted and grateful that we have worked it out in a way that is acceptable to all involved and it accomplishes a very significant public purpose. I thank the Senator from Oregon for all he did to bring us to that point.

I happily yield the floor to him.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to address the question of intelligence reform and the future of our national security establishment.

I believe this is the single most important issue to be addressed by the Congress this year. Today, the Senate is considering legislation which would overturn the current structure of the intelligence community, primarily in response to the recommendations of the Commission established to review the tragedy of 9/11.

While I agree that improvements are needed, I urge all of my colleagues to approach this matter very cautiously. We live in interesting and very dangerous times. Many felt that with the collapse of the Soviet Union we had entered into a new era of world peace. I think most of us here recall that we, the President and the Congress, immediately proceeded to claim a peace dividend, and we sought to reap its benefits by cutting back on national security spending. Perhaps it was the right thing, in a world that had indeed fundamentally changed, to reduce our national security spending. Important programs in both defense and intelligence were curtailed.

In hindsight, some now question why certain areas of the budget were reduced. As the Cold War ended, it was clear we needed to review our national security programs. For 45 years, our defense and intelligence capabilities had keenly focused on the Soviet Union. We had devised weapons systems, strategies, and intelligence capabilities, all designed to counter that threat. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, our leaders have been working to adjust the focus of our national security apparatus to de-emphasize certain elements of our strategy and accentuate others. These changes have taken a long time and some have met resistance. Those of you who know the military history might recall that during World War I, with the advent of tanks and other motor vehicles, it became apparent that the horse cavalry was obsolete; it simply had no place on the 20th century battlefield. Yet while that war ended in 1917, it took until the 1930s for the Army to completely eliminate the horse cavalry from its ranks.

In his highly acclaimed account of the Cuban missile crisis, ``The Essence of Decision,'' Graham Allison explains how President Kennedy was surprised when Khrushchev wanted to negotiate the removal of our missiles from Turkey, while he removed missiles from

Cuba, but President Kennedy had already directed that the Turkish missiles be removed.

After 42 years in the Senate, I am aware of how frustrating it can be to change the massive national security bureaucracy. It has frustrated the reformers in those agencies who recognize what needs to be done. Each Secretary of Defense and CIA Director since 1990 has worked to change the emphasis of these agencies from a Cold War focus, and they are succeeding, albeit very slowly.

The Congress can legislate changes, but that is only half the battle. As President Kennedy discovered, those who have to implement these changes must do so. We should not be fooled into thinking this bill will be fully implemented, unless it does right by the agency it seeks to change and is supported by them. As written, I do not believe this bill meets that test.

It is clearly our responsibility to make constructive recommendations that can lead to improvements in our national security bureaucracy. That is what the people expect of us. We must be sure that the bill we pass is in fact constructive and will not create greater problems than it solves. If we pass legislation that fundamentally alters the current intelligence structure, we can ensure that it will lead to a period of several years during which the new intelligence community will experience growing pains.

Furthermore, if, in our attempt to strengthen the control of the head of intelligence, we disenfranchise those it is supposed to support, the impact of this bill will clearly be adverse. I understand the frustrations of my colleagues and of all Americans who suffered because of 9/11--those who lost loved ones in particular, but in reality all Americans because our lives were changed by that tragedy.

Every Member of Congress wants to improve our defenses against any further terrorist attack. I say to each of my colleagues again, what is most important, what is absolutely critical is that we make changes that are positive, that improve our national security structure, and that do not have unintended consequences that could jeopardize our security.

We all recognize that we face a new enemy, one that knows no borders and operates beyond the norms of civilized society, but we also know that we have 130,000 troops standing in harm's way, who face a threat significantly different than the one we face here at home.

The new national security system we create must allow us to meet both of these challenges, as it must be able to protect us from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and from the threats of nations that might seek to harm us, our allies, or our interests around the world.

I often remark that we have the greatest military in the world, perhaps in the history of mankind. Our young men and women who put on the uniform of this country serve us magnificently. Let me remind you that it is only 1 percent of our citizens who serve in our Armed Forces to protect the remaining 99 percent of us. We are truly in their debt.

It is for them that I strongly support a robust budget to strengthen defense every year. It is also for them that we must ensure we do nothing to weaken the support they get from the intelligence community.

I would like to note that, in addition to our military, our Nation is lucky to be served by the men and women in our intelligence community.

They represent the best in public service. There are those who have criticized our intelligence community since 9/11, but the men and women in this field are truly dedicated, patriotic Americans. In seeking to change how we manage intelligence we must be sure that we remember those who serve in both of these communities.

We are focusing on intelligence reform in this bill because there is need for further improvement. The tragedy of 9/11 and the faulty intelligence which had many believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction demonstrate that our system is not perfect. It was exactly these problems which led the 9/11 Commission and many others to call for reforming intelligence.

Like all Americans I commend the Commission for its work. It did a masterful job of reviewing the facts, combing through the massive data, and presenting the results in clear and concise prose. Their report provides a great reconstruction of the events of 9/11 and why it occurred. However, some not that the conclusions they draw may not be fully justified by the facts they uncovered.

Last week, the Appropriations Committee received testimony from several expert witnesses. We heard from a distinguished jurist, Judge Richard Posner, who studied the 9/11 Commission report and was disturbed by its recommendations. He concluded that the Commission went way beyond the evidence presented.

The Commission contends that we had an intelligence failure, that it was a systemic problem as opposed to several mistakes being made by our intelligence community. They blame it on a failure to connect the dots and a lack of imagination.

In their analysis, and also cited by the Committee, for example, they note that several terrorists met in Malaysia and that a few proceeded from there to the United States and took part in the attack on 9/11. They conclude with hindsight that the CIA should have recognized that these terrorists were linked to the bombing of the USS Cole and should have informed the FBI and the State Department about the meeting.

It is this type of evidence which the Commission and the Governmental Affairs Committee both cite as the justification for an overhaul of our intelligence infrastructure.

We all wish that our analysts would have been prescient enough to recognize the relationship among these terrorists, and their connection to the Cole bombing, and the importance of the Malaysian meeting.

We all wish that these same analysts would have made that information available to the FBI and State Department where there exists a possibility that it would have triggered an investigation of their movements here. But I for one believe it would have taken a lot of luck for that to have happened--more than simply connecting the dots or having better imagination.

Consider this point. It has been more than 3 years since the attack on our Nation. In that time, we have devoted billions of dollars and we have sacrificed many young lives in the war on terrorism, but as far as we know, Osama bin Laden remains hidden from view directing the farflung al-Qaida network.

Would anyone seriously claim that we have not worked hard enough to connect the dots since 9/11?

Intelligence is a tough business. Like me, many of our colleagues have been involved in intelligence oversight for the Congress. I am not telling them something new.

We have witnessed advances in communications and in command and control and other technologies which have revolutionized intelligence. But, with all the highly sophisticated tools in our arsenal, we still can not find Osama.

Earlier this year, former CIA Director Tenet testified to the Congress that it would take another 5 years before we had successfully rebuilt an inadequate human intelligence capability in the war on terror. Some immediately held up the Director's statement as an indication that we have not addressed human intelligence requirements. And that is simply not the case.

For 50 years we promoted human intelligence, but our focus was on defeating international communism in places where it was taking root, primarily in Europe, Asia, and Latin America. In some cases it takes a generation to build a human intelligence network. When we took our peace dividend, we set back the efforts to refocus human intelligence on newer threats.

When the Director says it will take another 5 years, it is not because we haven't been responsive since the rise of al-Qaida. Should we have been working on this more vigilantly? Maybe. But I ask you: Who among us knew at the end of the Cold War that the greatest challenge we were likely to face in the future would come from the son of a Saudi construction magnate?

Had we known that at the time of Desert Storm, could we have convinced all of our colleagues that there should be no peace dividend because we needed to prepare for al-Qaida? We all know the answer to that.

So I ask you: How will changing the intelligence structure solve this dilemma? Will it allow us to grow our human intelligence capability overnight? Obviously not, but it could distort the working relationship among the various agencies so that intelligence support is harder for the agencies, such as the Defense Department, to get.

That could lead agencies with the financial wherewithal to provide that capability internally. That outcome would be expensive and very harmful.

The Commission looks at this issue only through the lens of terrorism, and seeks to ensure better coordination within the community.

In so doing, it fails to consider the varied responsibilities and needs of all the actors which depend on intelligence.

As you know, as ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I have access to virtually all of our Nation's secrets, including those in the Defense Department and in intelligence programs as well.

Over the past 3 years our Committee has been informed of multiple threats, most of which have never been publicized. The intelligence community must treat each warning with utmost care. They must research and investigate each one to determine its veracity, and then respond appropriately to those incidents which are deemed credible.

In many cases what some call connecting the dots is really like searching for a needle in a haystack. And, just to make it more difficult, there are many hay stacks to examine and in some cases the needle looks exactly like hay. Sure the needles are there and theoretically they could be found, but should we really expect our analysts to find them every time?

Furthermore, I want everyone to realize that we are not standing still. We have come a long way in improving intelligence cooperation.

We created the Terrorist Threat Integration Center to bring analysts from various parts of the community to work together.

The enactment of the PATRIOT Act brought down a wall which had previously blocked information sharing between various parts of the intelligence community and the FBI. Our defense and intelligence leaders are working to break stovepipes and to ensure that information sharing is working.

Certainly more improvements are needed in intelligence cooperation and in new technology to improve information sharing.

Our Nation has the finest national security apparatus--defense and intelligence--in the world. It is not perfect and it never will be. Some areas can be improved. But it is a critical capability.

Our warfighters--our young men and women who, as we speak, are serving in harm's way--depend on seamless intelligence. It is our solemn duty to ensure that we can continue to provide them the best. We must make sure that we do not inadvertently take actions which could sever the link between our defense capabilities and intelligence support.

We cannot take the Secretary of Defense out of the loop simply because we seek to strengthen the head of the intelligence community.

So what changes shall we make to improve the intelligence capability of this country?

First, I would suggest, as recommended by the Commission and the Governmental Affairs Committee, that we establish a national counterterrorism center.

The one real failing of the intelligence community in preparing for 9/11, be it in the FBI, the CIA, the NSA or other organizations was the inability or unwillingness to share terrorist intelligence and analysis completely and seamlessly among the disparate parts of this community.

Many improvements have already been made, but the one reform that truly can respond to the cries from the families of 9/11 victims is to address this issue, and to address it now. This is the most critical change that needs to be legislated and our Intelligence and Armed Services Committees need to follow up to make sure it is implemented and is effective in conducting it mission.

That center needs to be the clearing house for all intelligence on counter-terrorism, both foreign and domestic. It needs to work across disciplines and agencies, and it needs to have the support of all of the intelligence community. It needs to be the analytical capability for the community in the field of counterterrorism.

We need to join foreign and domestic analysis together to be sure that we get the full intelligence picture. However, because this Nation believes that foreign and domestic intelligence programs must be separated to ensure that civil liberties and the rights of all Americans are safeguarded, I would urge my colleagues not to give this organization any operational role.

It certainly should conduct analysis and strategic planning, but operational planning and operations should continue to be handled as they are today through other parts of the intelligence community working with the Defense Department overseas and the FBI working here at home in conjunction with other relevant domestic agencies.

I believe that as we establish this new organization, the national intelligence director's charter should ensure that this national counterterrorism center receives the resources it needs and that the director should focus his efforts on this one challenge in its first year of existence.

I agree with the managers of the bill that other intelligence centers may need to be created, but I believe the decision to do so should come from the President based on the recommendation of the national intelligence director with the concurrence of the National Security Council and the Congress.

Most important, we have to make sure we come up with the right solutions for the rest of the intelligence community. What may be right for counterterrorism may not be the solution that best serves our intelligence needs for weapons proliferation or for our military. For those reasons, I am not comfortable with rushing this process.

Some criticize the community for a ``group think'' outlook. They say that the analysis that indicated that in all probability Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction is an example of group think. I am one who questioned the results of that analysis.

With hindsight, I speculate that the community failed because it tried to provide policy makers the answer they wanted rather than a fair interpretation of the facts. Nonetheless, if group think was a problem, how will that be improved by greater centralization of the analytical capabilities in the community? Won't that only exacerbate that problem?

And by creating a more powerful intelligence director with a closer tie to policy making, won't that likely lead to more attempts to sway analysts to reach politically acceptable conclusions?

These are the troubling facts that were not addressed by the 9/11 Commission and are not adequately considered in this bill.

Last week, the Appropriations Committee received testimony from seven witnesses, all of whom are experts in the field of national security and counterterrorism. Included among them were Dr. Henry Kissinger, the current head of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and former Deputy Secretary of Defense, Dr. John Hamre.

I do not believe I would be overstating their views to say they were quite concerned with the legislation being proposed by the Governmental Affairs Committee.

Their counsel was to be cautious. Dr. Kissinger recommended that Congress study this issue more carefully.

He urged us to take another 6 months before we moved forward on what is the most significant Government overhaul since the National Security Act of 1947.

Last week, noted experts in national security, including former Secretary of State George Shultz, former CIA Director William Gates, former Secretaries of Defense Bill Cohen and Frank Carlucci, and former Senators Nunn, Hart, Bradley, Rudman and Boren, all recommended that the Congress proceed cautiously. They urged all of us to remember the old medical adage: First, do no harm.

This is a most important debate and a most important issue. I know some of my colleagues worry that if we do not

act now we will lose the opportunity for significant change. I recognize this concern. But enacting bad legislation in haste because there is a popular demand to act is not the proper way for this body to respond.

The Senate was created to cool the passions of the people. Our history, our culture, even our rules are all deeply instilled with the concept of proceeding cautiously.

I urge my colleagues to agree with those of us who recommend beginning the process of reform by establishing a new central authority for intelligence, a national intelligence director, any by responding to the specific challenges raised by the events of 9/11 with the creation of a national counterterrorism center.

But I believe we need to give a new administration and Congress more time to determine how the rest of the national security apparatus will be structured. Let us use the coming year to determine how we balance the additional responsibilities and share power among the various components of our national security agencies.

This matter is too important to rush through in 2 weeks in the heat of a Presidential campaign. Please let us act responsibly.

I yield the floor.