Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9 a.m. on Tuesday, October 5. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and that there be a period of morning business until 9:40 a.m. with the first half of the time under the control of the majority leader or his designee and the second half under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee; provided further that at 9:40 a.m., the Senate resume consideration of S. 2845, the intelligence reform bill, and the time until 9:45 a.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; provided further that at 9:45 a.m. the Senate proceed to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that Members have until 9:45 tomorrow morning in order to file second-degree amendments as under rule XXII.

Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow at 9:45 a.m., the Senate will vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the intelligence reform bill. We have made good progress on the bill, disposing of dozens of amendments. It is my hope that cloture will be invoked tomorrow morning so that we can move toward final action on the bill. For the remainder of the bill, the Senate will work through additional amendments to the bill. Senators should, therefore, expect rollcall votes throughout the day tomorrow.

Finally, I remind everyone of the majority leader's announcement that following the conclusion of this bill, the Senate will begin consideration of the intelligence reforms related to the organization of the Senate.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Colorado for the work that he has done in coordinating the geospatial information needs of the Department of Homeland Security. He first introduced a bill on this issue last year. He has been a leader in pushing for improvements in how this information is handled. This legislation was recently reported as a separate bill by the Governmental Affairs Committee. It is acceptable and cleared on both sides. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado for his generous comments. I very much enjoy working with him on the Armed Services Committee. He brings a great deal of expertise to this debate.

The amendment he has proposed this morning is one that our staffs are starting to look at. I suggest that it be set aside so that we can do more analysis of it, but I appreciate the spirit in which it was offered.

Mr. President, before I comment on the specifics of the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia, let me join Senator Lieberman in expressing the utmost respect that I have for the Senator from West Virginia. His devotion to the Constitution, to the Senate, to the country, and to his family is truly legendary. I have learned so much just from watching the Senator from West Virginia. In fact, he inspired me to get a copy of the Constitution, and while I don't carry it with me as he does, I have it in my briefcase. It was his example that inspired me to do that.

Like Senator Lieberman, I have, nevertheless, many concerns about the pending amendment. In drafting our bill, we made very clear the authority that the new national intelligence director would have. We did not want to simply create another layer of bureaucracy. What we wanted to do is to empower the NID with significant budget personnel, standard-setting authority, so that this individual could make a difference.

I remember in the testimony before our committee the consensus among the witnesses was that in order for the NID to be effective, strong authority was absolutely critical. Indeed, the assistant DCI for community management said it very forthrightly. He testified as follows:

We must be flexible in shifting people and money to respond

to emerging priorities. Today's intelligence budget system

does not meet this criteria.

Senator Byrd's amendment imposes significant restrictions on the ability of NID to transfer personnel and to transfer funds. That concerns me greatly.

Under the Collins-Lieberman bill, with OMB approval, the NID may transfer or reprogram funds appropriated for a program within the national intelligence budget to another program. The NID is required to consult with the heads of the affected agencies prior to implementing such a reprogramming or transfer, but our bill does not require their approval. We make very clear that the reprogramming and transferring approvals and restrictions as far as congressional authority are included in our bill, as well.

If we require the concurrence of the agency heads before personnel or money can be moved around, we essentially have made no improvement in the current system. That is not progress. In fact, it is exactly the problem the 9/11 Commission identified over and over again as a major flaw in the current system.

The NID needs to be able to marshal the people, the funds, and the resources necessary to counter the threats we face. That is the bottom line.

The current authorities for the DCI are insufficient because they permit agencies to prevent the DCI from transferring funds or people simply by objective. That is what we need to change.

I am also concerned about making additional positions created by this bill subject to Senate confirmation. The privacy and civil rights officers at the Department of Homeland Security are not Senate- confirmed positions. I see no reason for treating the privacy and civil rights officers that would be created by this bill any differently.

There is another point that I make about the restrictions in the Senator's amendments on reprogramming and transfer authority. That is, if we are going to impose these kinds of restrictions, we are not improving the system in any significant way, and we are allowing the long delays that plague the current system to continue.

Acting CIA Director John McLaughlin told me it can take as long as 5 months for him to reprogram funds. In the threat environment we face today, we cannot afford a 5-month delay in transferring urgently needed funds to counter the threat we face.

The amendment of the Senator from West Virginia would represent a significant weakening of the authority in this bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Madam President, as we have indicated, the legislation before the Senate is the product of a concerted effort by the Governmental Affairs Committee to reflect the testimony of more than two dozen witnesses at eight hearings. It reflects the recommendations of other committees who gave us input into the legislation, and it builds upon the work of the 9/11 Commission. But it is important to know that the 9/11 Commission did not start from scratch, either. Its work takes into account nearly a half century of studies on intelligence reform, dating back to the Eisenhower administration. Indeed, the calls for reform go back 50 years. For nearly 2 years, the 9/11 Commission conducted an investigation of unprecedented depth. They interviewed more than 1,200 witnesses in 10 countries, yet we hear again those who counsel: Not yet; we are going too fast; we should wait; we need more information; under the current threat of terrorism, the time isn't right; the highly charged political atmosphere of a Presidential campaign creates an environment that is not right for such an important decision.

I ask, what more information do we need? If you look at the list of witnesses who testified before the 9/11 Commission, before the Governmental Affairs Committee, before the Armed Services and Intelligence Appropriations Committee, I would say, what point of view has not been heard? What area of expertise was not explored? What more compelling evidence do we need? I ask, if the time isn't right to act now, when will the right time ever come? When will there be no threats? When will we be at peace?

The war against terrorism is likely to have to continue for many years. I believe we will have failed the American people if we do not act on an issue that is so important to the security of our country.

I think the chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean, said it best when he spoke at our very first committee hearing on July 30 of the urgent need to move forward with these reforms. This is what he said:

These people are planning to attack us again, and trying to

attack us sooner rather than later. Every delay that we have

in changing structures to make that less likely is a delay

that the American people can't tolerate.

I think he said it well. The stakes are too high. The matter before us is too compelling. Even as we debate this legislation, we know that terrorists are planning to attack our country. We know that we are at an increased risk of terrorist attack. We see it all around this Capitol at the intersections and with the increased security. How can we not act? What more do we need to know?

If we do not act, I think we will have failed to respond to an urgent threat, and we will have failed in our responsibility to do everything we can to make our citizens safer.

Now is not the time to delay. Now is the time to move forward, and to move forward with a bill that makes a difference, not a bill that tinkers around the edges or makes a few cosmetic changes but, rather, with a bill that makes fundamental reforms to respond to deficiencies, inadequacies, and flaws that have been identified time and time again over 50 years.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia.

I note the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee is now on the floor, and I would like him to proceed whenever he wishes.

Madam President, for the national intelligence director to be truly accountable for the intelligence community, the director must have the authority to have a real say in the selection of the heads of the principal agencies of the intelligence community. The 9/11 Commission said that the ability to hire the senior managers is one of the key authorities, critical to the success of the national intelligence director. It is critical to the success of any leader, but particularly it is important for the head of the intelligence community. The 9/11 Commission cited the DCI's current lack of this power as one of the key flaws in the DCI's authorities.

Under the Collins-Lieberman bill, the NID will recommend to the President nominees to be the directors of the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency--the agencies known better as NSA, NGA, and NRO. The NID is required to obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense before recommending the nominees to the President, and if the Secretary of Defense does not agree with the recommendations of the NID, the director must make that fact known to the President.

The distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the managers of this bill each agree that these three critical agencies should remain within the Department of Defense because of the dual role these agencies play. For that reason, we joined forces to oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania that would have severed the link between these agencies and the Secretary of Defense, the reporting link.

In our bill, I believe we have taken the right approach. We have left these three agencies within the Department of Defense, but we have made it clear that there is an important reporting responsibility to the national intelligence director and that the national intelligence director will choose the individuals to lead these agencies with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense. It is actually the President's nomination, but the recommendations would go from the NID with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense.

Why did we do that? We struck that balance not only because it was recommended by the 9/11 Commission, and strongly recommended, but because we recognize that these three agencies do not just serve the Department of Defense; they are national intelligence assets. They provide vital intelligence information throughout the intelligence community. In fact, when Senator Lieberman and I met with the head of the NSA, he told us he was on the phone far more often with the Director of the CIA than he is with the Secretary of Defense.

These agencies provide critical information to the CIA, to the Secretary of State, to the Secretary of Energy, to the Secretary of the Treasury--to all those 15 agencies across our Government that vitally need intelligence information. That is why we have the heads of these agencies recommended by the national intelligence director with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense.

I point out that if we were to adopt the amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia, we are essentially making no change in current law. Under current law, the Secretary of Defense recommends the appointment of these individuals to the President, and it is the Director of Central Intelligence who concurs in the choice. So essentially the Senator from Virginia is simply restating current law. Current law is not adequate, and we know that that higher authority is a key authority. If we are going to hold the national intelligence director accountable for the intelligence community, we have to give him the authorities he needs to do his job.

Mr. President, to respond to the question raised by the Senator from Virginia, it is the leader's intention to convene perhaps at 10 or 11 o'clock on Monday morning, allow for some further debate, and then stack votes beginning at 3 p.m. There will be 2 minutes equally divided before each vote, but knowing of the Senator's desire to have further debate on Monday, we are going to convene early enough on Monday to allow that to occur. We expect a great many stacked votes to begin at approximately 3 o'clock Monday. Thus, we are not going to have time for extensive debate between those votes.

I ask that the amendment be laid aside. The Senator from Vermont is next. I wonder if the Senator could withhold for a couple of moments to allow consultation among the three of us before he sends up his amendment.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Vermont bringing his amendment forward. We are going to discuss it further with him.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be laid aside temporarily and that the Senator from Rhode Island be recognized to offer an amendment.

Mr. President, it is my understanding, based on the tentative schedule that we worked out last night, that Senator Levin is to be recognized next to offer amendments, followed by Senator Roberts, followed by Senator Stevens, followed by Senator Kyl. I see the Senator from North Dakota is here to make a comment. My concern is how that fits in with the amendment schedule worked out last night.

I appreciate that.

Mr. President, the pending amendment raises several questions. It has very worthy goals. We have previously adopted a McCain-Lieberman amendment dealing with some of the same issues. We need to have a discussion with the sponsors of the amendment, Senators Reed and Sarbanes and others, to see how their amendment interacts with the legislation previously adopted, the McCain-Lieberman amendment.

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

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

Mr. President, I support the amendment proposed by Senator Levin. I thank him for offering it and for all of his hard work. It reflects not only the Senator's unique experience as a member of the Intelligence Committee, the Armed Services Committee, and the Governmental Affairs Committee, but also it reflects his usual care and attention to detail, which is unparalleled in this body.

The Levin amendment makes clear that the NID will establish collection and analysis requirements for the intelligence community following input from the consumers of intelligence. With these authorities, the NID will be able to manage collection activities across the intelligence community to ensure that defense, homeland security, and diplomatic needs are prioritized and satisfied. Similarly, a strong NID will ensure robust and competitive analysis of intelligence, prioritized to meet our most pressing needs.

Senator Levin's amendment will clarify that the consumers of national intelligence should set the requirements for collection and analysis. It would also emphasize that independent and comparative analyses are critical to an effective intelligence community.

I thank the Senator from Michigan for his contribution. I urge agreement of the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, for his thoughtful amendments.

I have a great deal of admiration and respect for the Senator's knowledge in this area. I was very pleased that he participated in some of the committee's hearings, particularly the one where we had the former DCIs come in and give us their views. Both and he Senator Rockefeller took the time out of their August recess to come to that hearing and fully participated in it. They have been providing us with their insight and guidance, which I very much appreciate.

The Senator from Kansas has offered a series of thoughtful amendments that are designed to clarify provisions in the bill with regard to information sharing, the primary mission of the National Intelligence Authority, the authorities of the NID, and several other matters. We agree largely with the goals of these amendments, and we are trying to work out agreement on specific language.

One of the problems we face, since we have adopted a lot of different amendments, including one cosponsored by the Senator last night having to do with an office of alternative analysis, is we need to make sure we are not duplicating changes that have been made by other amendments. It is a bit of a moving target here.

Another problem is, of course, we are trying to maintain that delicate balance struck by our bill. Any amendment that further strengthens the NID's authorities is a particular concern to one group; any amendment that weakens the NID's authorities is a particular concern to another. I know the Senator is very aware of the competing pressures in this regard.

In short, I want to assure the Senator and thank him for his contributions. We will try to work out these amendments consistent with the approach we have taken in the underlying bill. I very much appreciate the Senator's cooperation and good work and his leadership in this area.

I would be happy to yield.

Mr. President, I very much appreciate the cooperation of the Senator from Arizona. We would be happy to work with him on the three amendments that he has laid down.

I do want to debate further the other amendment, his first amendment on privacy and civil liberties oversight. That is a key amendment, and I do want to engage on that. However, I know that Senator Stevens is under a tight timeframe for this afternoon. I would be willing to delay my response to the debate of the two Senators on my side of the aisle until after Senator Stevens has had an opportunity to lay down his amendments.

Mr. President, I know the Senator from Alaska is on a tight timeline this afternoon. I am not going to respond in depth to the amendments he put forward.

Let me say to the Senator from Alaska that on some of his amendments he has raised very valid concerns, and I would like the opportunity to work with him to try to resolve some of the issues. For example, some of the implementation date issues I believe we might be able to work through. The

clarifying language on the counterterrorism center parallels the changes we made in committee, and we may well be able to come up with something on that.

I appreciate the Senator's concerns and his desire to make sure that the language is clear and accurate throughout the bill. While obviously we have some fundamental disagreements on the underlying legislation, nevertheless I believe that some things in his amendments are beneficial in the bill, if we are able to resolve some language. I want to pledge to him my appreciation for his effort and my willingness to work with him on some of those issues.

I call for the regular order with respect to the Corzine amendment numbered 3849.

Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Inhofe.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside so that other amendments can be considered.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senators from Arizona and Alabama bringing forward their amendments today, but I have a number of concerns about them.

The proposed amendments strike an officer for civil rights and civil liberties and a privacy officer for the new national intelligence authority. The amendment also strikes provisions requiring that a senior official be designated in certain departments and agencies who would be responsible for privacy and civil liberties issues. And finally, the amendment changes the authority of the privacy and civil liberties oversight board by removing its subpoena authority. I particularly want to address that last point, because I think there is a misunderstanding on the extent of the subpoena authority and to whom it applies.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, during his joint address to the Congress, the President called on all Americans to:

. . . uphold the values of America and remember why so many

have come here. We're in a fight for our principles and our

first responsibility is to live by them.

Similarly, the 9/11 Commission concluded in its report that we must find ways of reconciling security with liberty since the success of one helps protect the other. The choice between security and liberty is a false choice, as nothing is more likely to endanger America's liberties than the success of a terrorist attack at home.

The Commission went on to state that while protecting our homeland, Americans should be mindful of the threats to vital personal and civil liberties. The shift of power and authority to the Government calls for an enhanced system of checks and balances to protect the precious liberties that are vital to our way of life.

In response to these concerns, the Commission recommended that at this time of increased and consolidated Government authority, there should be a board within the executive branch to oversee adherence to the guidelines the Commission recommends and the commitment of our Government to protect civil liberties.

To respond to these recommendations and the concerns that we fight this war against terrorism without sacrificing the values that define us as Americans, S. 2845 establishes the two officers, one for civil rights and one for privacy, to assist the national intelligence director on issues that may affect civil liberties and privacy. These officials are modeled after those created by Congress for the Department of Homeland Security. There is both a civil liberties officer and a privacy officer. The creation of similar officers within the Department of Homeland Security is a good example of how these officers can assist the Department in considering relevant issues without compromising our efforts to protect the homeland.

The Department has found that having those two officials has helped them strike the right balance as they pursue new policies. The Department has found that the work of these officials at DHS has not hindered its implementation of programs and activities but, rather, has improved them. By providing advice and counsel as policies and programs are being developed, they help the Department address privacy and civil liberties concerns at the front end and minimize the possibility of having to respond to real problems after a policy or program that didn't take into account privacy implications or civil liberties implications has already been put into place.

I would have been more sympathetic to the amendment if the Senators had made the argument that perhaps in this much smaller unit those two officials could be combined into one position so that we could have one official for both privacy and civil liberties. That might be a possible compromise. It is one about which I would have to talk with the other sponsor of the bill. But that might be a way to respond to a concern that I know the Presiding Officer has about excessive positions or bureaucracies.

I want to speak particularly to the subpoena issue. The subpoena power provided in this bill to the civil liberties board applies only to persons other than departments, agencies, and elements of the executive branch. I want to repeat that. While the bill does authorize the board to have access to executive department and agency materials and personnel, where appropriate, there is no subpoena power. There is no enforcement mechanism in the bill. That leaves compliance in the hands of the relevant department or agency head. The subpoena power only applies to outside entities, not to Government agencies or officials.

So the provisions of this subpoena authority do not allow the scenario brought forth by some of the sponsors of this amendment in which they raise the specter of the civil liberties board being able to subpoena a CIA case officer. That is not allowed under this bill.

Moreover, the subpoena authority in this bill is narrower, much more circumscribed, than the authority that is given to inspectors general throughout the Federal Government who do have the ability to subpoena documents and individuals for information within the Federal Government. I wanted to correct that misunderstanding on the subpoena power.

We have a responsibility, as we continue to improve our capacity to fight terrorism--the all-important battle that our Nation faces--to uphold and protect the very liberties and freedom on which this Nation was founded and for which we are fighting today. We need to make sure that as we strengthen the power of Government, we do not infringe upon the civil liberties and the privacy of law-abiding Americans. I believe the provisions in this bill help to strike the right balance.

Let me complete my remarks on this issue by pointing out that the 9/ 11 Commission has endorsed the board created by this bill. I know the Senator from Alabama has suggested a different version of a civil liberties board.

In testimony before the House Government Reform Committee, two of our commissioners--and I would note it was bipartisan; it was a Republican commissioner and a Democratic commissioner--said:

A civil liberties board of the kind we recommend can be

found in the Collins-Lieberman bill in the Senate.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I believe we will be here for another hour, approximately--until 5 o'clock.

Before the Senator from Virginia leaves, I think we have the same goal in this amendment. But I think to make sure that this amendment is interpreted as I believe we would all have it interpreted, we need to add language at the beginning that says something like: Except as specifically set forth in this act, nothing herein or amendments made by this amendment shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the authority of it.

That way it would be clear that in this provision we are not affecting the other authorities of these departments, but neither are we wiping out what this legislation has done.

Mr. President, obviously we do want to preserve what is in the bill. That is why we are doing the bill.

If the intent of the Senator is to override the provisions of the bill, then that would be a problem.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut and my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, for working with me to address concerns that have been raised by the National Governors Association regarding the provisions in the McCain-Lieberman amendment that dealt with the standardization of State drivers' licenses. I believe the change which has been made, which will require an assessment of the cost benefits of any new requirements, is an important one.

I ask unanimous consent that two letters from the National Governors Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I urge adoption of the modified amendment.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas for his generous comments and for presenting a very compelling case for passing this legislation, a case that says we cannot delay; the stakes are too high; the issues are too compelling in the war against terrorism. I thank him for his support and for his hard work on this very important issue.

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

Mr. President, I have a number of amendments from both sides of the aisle that have been cleared by both of the managers of the bill. I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to the consideration of the following amendments, en bloc: Coleman

amendment 3798, Coleman amendment 3799, Coleman amendment 3800, Snowe amendment 3911, Snowe amendment 3912, Snowe amendment 3932, Frist amendment 3864, Bingaman amendment 3772, Reed of Rhode Island amendment 3813, and Feinstein amendment 3717.

I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed to en bloc and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that we proceed to the consideration of the Bingaman-Domenici amendment 3771, as modified. I send the modification to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the modification be agreed to, that the amendment, as modified, be agreed to, and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of the Graham-Durbin amendment No. 3756.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, as I indicated, those amendments have all been worked out. They have been cleared on both sides. We are making progress on this bill. There have been a great number of amendments filed. I encourage all Senators to work closely with the managers of the bill to allow us to proceed to consider this bill on Tuesday. We have a great deal of work to be done before that time, but we made progress today.

I also thank those Senators who came forward with their amendments today. Shortly, I will have an announcement about the voting schedule for Monday. We do expect to have a number of stacked votes in the mid to late afternoon. We are working on that list even as we speak.

Amendment No. 3803

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Cornyn, I send an amendment to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent the amendment be laid aside.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus.

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

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Baucus amendment No. 3768 be modified with the change at the desk.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside and call up the Stevens amendment No. 3903.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be a period of morning business, with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 30 at 10:30 a.m. to receive testimony regarding issues relating to low level radioactive waste.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on the judiciary

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to continue its markup on Thursday, September 30, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Agenda

I. Nominations

Claude A. Allen, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit; Susan B. Neilson, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit; Micaela Alvarez, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas; Keith Starrett, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi; Christopher Boyko, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio; Raymond L. Finch, to be Judge for the District Court of the Virgin Islands for a term of ten years, reappointment; David E. Nahmias, to be United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia; Richard B. Roper, to be United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas for the term of four years; Lisa Wood, to be United States Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia for the term of four years; Ricardo H. Hinojosa, to be Chair of the United States Sentencing Commission; Michael O'Neill, to be a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission; Ruben Castillo, to be a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission; Beryl Alaine Howell, to be a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission; and William Sanchez, to be Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practice.

II. Legislation

S. 1635, L-1 Visa (Intracompany Transferee) Reform Act of 2003, Chambliss;

S. 2396, Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2004, Hatch, Leahy, Chambliss, Durbin, Schumer;

S. 2204, A bill to provide criminal penalties for false information and hoaxes relating to terrorism Act of 2004, Hatch, Schumer, Cornyn, Feinstein, DeWine;

S. 1860, A bill to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy Act of 2003, Hatch, Biden, Grassley;

S. 2195, A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to clarify the definition of anabolic steroids and to provide for research and education activities relating to steroids and steroid precursors Act of 2004, Biden, Hatch, Grassely, Feinstein;

S. 2560, A bill to amend chapter 5 of title 17, United States Code, relating to inducement of copyright infringement, and for other purposes Act of 2004, Hatch, Leahy, Graham;

S.J. Res. 23, A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing for the event that one- fourth of the members of either the House of Representatives or the Senate are killed or incapacitated Act of 2003, Cornyn, Chambliss;

S. 2373, A bill to modify the prohibition on recognition by United States courts of certain rights relating to certain marks, trade names, or commercial names, Domenici, Graham, Sessions;

S. 1784, A bill to eliminate the safe-harbor exception for certain packaged pseudoephedrine products used in the manufacture of methamphetamine Act of 2003, Feinstein, Grassley, Kohl, Biden, Kyl, Schumer;

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 30, 2004, to consider the nominations of Mary J. Schoelen and William A. Moorman to be Judges, U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans' Claims, and Robert Allen Pittman to be Assistant Secretary of Human Resources and Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 2:00 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Communications be authorized to meet on September 30, 2004, at 2:30 pm. on ICANN Oversight/Security of Internet Root Servers and the Domain Name System (DNS).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Financial Management, the Budget, and International Security be authorized to meet on Thursday, September 30, 2004 at 10:30 a.m. for a hearing entitled, ``Oversight Hearing

on Section 529 College Savings Plans: High Fees, Inadequate Disclosure, Disparate State Tax Treatment and Questionable Broker Sales Practices.''

Mr. President, I note that the Senator from Massachusetts is in the Chamber. I wonder if I could inquire of the Senator from Massachusetts whether he is going to be seeking recognition to speak on the bill or on another issue?

Mr. President, I would like to propound a unanimous consent request that the Senator from Massachusetts be recognized for 10 minutes, to be followed by the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith, to be recognized for 10 minutes.

Madam President, we are now going to resume consideration of S. 2845. Senator Lieberman and I, along with the two leaders, encourage Members to come forward with their amendments. The leaders are determined that we will finish this bill very early next week. In order to do so, we need the cooperation of all Senators who have filed amendments, and we encourage them to bring them forward.

Madam President, I commend the Senator from Arkansas for the diligence with which he approached the hearings throughout the August recess and the writing of this important legislation. I very much appreciate the comments of the Senator from Arkansas. He is always generous to me, as well as to the ranking member. We would be remiss if we did not thank him for his contributions to this bill. He was terrific about redoing his schedule throughout the August recess to participate in our numerous hearings. He was instrumental in drafting provisions of the bill including the requirement for the GAO report. I recognize his hard work and leadership and thank him for his kind comments.

Madam President, I thank our distinguished colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, for introducing this amendment that clarifies the role of the national intelligence centers that the NID is empowered to create under our bill.

Senator Graham, as former chair of the Intelligence Committee, and having just published a book on intelligence, provides this body with a very important perspective in this debate. His amendment strengthens the role of the national intelligence centers by placing them on par with the National Counterterrorism Center. This amendment provides much needed flexibility to the national intelligence director in establishing the centers. It allows the director to establish criteria for the centers to focus on vital areas of expertise.

The amendment also directs the national intelligence director to provide an annual report to Congress on the responsibilities of each of the centers that are created. This is an important aspect of this amendment. We can no longer afford to maintain the same percentage of Russian linguists today, for example, as we had during the Cold War. We have new wars, new challenges, new threats, and they demand new capabilities and responses as the 9/11 Commission Report indicated.

This amendment is well within the intent of the 9/11 Commission Report and recommendations as is evident by the letter that the Senator has from the chairman and vice chairman of the committee. I endorse the amendment on my side. I am happy to accept it. I thank the Senator for working closely with us.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate on this amendment.

Mr. President, I join Senator Lieberman in commending Senator McCain for offering this amendment. It would make several changes to the Presidential transition process, changes that are consistent with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

The Governmental Affairs Subcommittee, chaired by Senator Voinovich, held a hearing on this issue at which two of the Commissioners, Fred Fielding and Jamie Gorelick, discussed how the current transition process does not serve our country well in the handing over, the transitioning of important national security decisions from one administration to another. One reason is that it is such a slow process to get the new administration's team in place.

I believe this amendment would greatly improve the process. I know of no opposition to it. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, once again, I thank the Senator from Arizona for bringing up another series of recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission.

This is a very broad amendment. There is much in it which I support, and I agree with the Senator that there is a significant problem with fraudulent documents, including driver's licenses. Nevertheless, several groups, including the National Governors Association, the National Council of State Legislatures, and the American Civil Liberties Union, have expressed concerns regarding the degree to which some of the provisions in this amendment would infringe on the powers traditionally exercised by the States to set standards in the area of driver's licenses, for example. Therefore, I would like to suggest to the Senator that we continue working on these issues to see if we can resolve some of these concerns and that we set this amendment aside for the time being to allow for that.

I yield the floor temporarily.

Mr. President, I suggest, based on the conversations I have had with all who are present in the Senate now, we first yield to the Senator from California, who is going to discuss her proposal while we are continuing to work at the staff level on the language of her amendment; that we then go to the Senator from Texas, who has two amendments he would like to discuss--again, we are still working with the Senator from Texas--and we then proceed to the amendment Senator Lautenberg has proposed.

Mr. President, that unanimous consent agreement would work well from my perspective.

We will now then go to the Senator from California.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for his comments. We look forward to working with him on his two additional amendments. We were pleased to be able to pass his first amendment to this bill last night. We appreciate his cooperation.

In consultation with the Senator from Nevada, the Democratic whip, I ask unanimous consent that the consent request previously entered into be altered so that Senator Byrd would be recognized for up to 25 minutes prior to Senator Lautenberg offering his amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his terrific contributions to this bill. He was the individual who brought to the committee's attention the woefully deficient information systems that have hindered the war against terrorism.

I remember how shocked I was at our first hearing, when the Senator from Illinois described the FBI being unable to transmit pictures of the 9/11 terrorists to its field offices. He also told us the FBI did not have the capacity to transmit fingerprints to the Border Patrol. Those underscored, in a way that few have been able to do, the lack of an adequate, integrated communications network within the Federal Government.

We worked very closely with the Senator from Illinois on this section of the bill. It incorporates his thoughts, his language, and it is his leadership that is behind those important provisions. So I salute him for being out in front on this issue and helping us come up with provisions that I think are going to make a real difference.

I salute and thank the Senator from Illinois.

I know Senator Conrad is waiting to have a colloquy with the managers of the bill. I do have an amendment that I think I can dispose of very quickly. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside. On behalf of Senator Voinovich, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I know the Presiding Officer has a great interest in the issue that we are about to briefly discuss. The amendment of Senator Voinovich would require the Office of Government Ethics to report to Congress on recommendations for streamlining the financial disclosure forms for the executive branch. In addition, the amendment would require each executive branch agency to examine the number of positions requiring Senate confirmation. It would ask the Office of Government Ethics to conduct a comprehensive review of the Government's conflict of interest laws, and it would require the Office of Personnel Management to provide Presidential candidates with a list of all appointed positions within 15 days of their party's nomination. This amendment is based on legislation that was favorably reported by the committee during the last Congress.

The 9/11 Commission recommended that the Senate should not require confirmation of appointees within the national security team below level 3 of the executive schedule. The Voinovich amendment lays the groundwork for this recommendation by requiring the executive branch to identify which positions could be eliminated from the confirmation process.

Review of that information by all Senate committees will help those of us in the Senate make a more informed and thoughtful decision on reducing specific positions that now require confirmation.

The financial disclosure requirements have been in effect for almost 25 years. Unfortunately, in some cases, they have deterred very good people from serving in the Federal Government. I hope this will lead to more effective, more efficient, and simpler requirements so it no longer will deter potential nominees from serving, or force them to go through great expense in order to comply with overly burdensome laws and regulations.

Again, this proposal is very consistent with the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission and I urge acceptance of the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for the thought he has given to this issue. I know he has a great interest in management structures, in making sure we have the most efficient structure possible to serve the taxpayers. So I very much appreciate the spirit with which he has raised these questions.

I want to make three concluding points to emphasize some of the points already made by my colleague from Connecticut.

First, it was evident as we studied this issue and read the 9/11 Commission Report that the current system does not foster the kind of communication and cooperation we desperately need. It is a series of stovepipes with no one having the ability to make the final decisions, to resolve conflicts, to move resources and people where they are most needed. You cannot go to the President of the United States on everything.

I have seen that firsthand in the staffing of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center where the Director feels he needs more resources, other decisions have been made by various agency heads, and there is no one to step in and set the priorities, move the people, and direct the resources. I think our bill really changes that.

Like Senator Lieberman, I was struck by Director Tenet's 12/98 memo in which he does this call to be at war and that all resources should be marshaled, and virtually nothing happened. That will change under our structure. There will be accountability under our structure because people will know who is in charge and whose call it is, and that is the national intelligence director. Our organization enhances accountability, cooperation, coordination, communication, and, most of all, results.

Second, the 9/11 Commission considered doing the kind of structure you have raised questions about. Essentially, that would be creating a department of intelligence. You would take all of these units out of the other agencies and do a brandnew department. And it felt--and I agree--that would be too disruptive, particularly at a time when we are at war; that it would be expensive, it would be complicated, it would take a long time to put into effect.

We have seen that with the Department of Homeland Security. That has been a massive undertaking. I am very proud of the leadership of Secretary Ridge and Admiral Loy, but it has not been without its growing pains. We just could not afford that kind of disruption right now.

Third would be the reaction of DOD if we took all of those entities out and put them in a new department. There was testimony of a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency at a hearing on the House side in August. He said if you pulled those agencies, like the National Security Agency, the DIA, the NGA, the NRO--those that serve DOD and other consumers--if you pulled them out, you would see DOD re-creating within the Department new entities to replace those if you severed that link and transferred them. To quote William Odom, ``You're just going to end up with a big mess'' if you do that. That is why we came up with this structure.

William Odom, who is a former head of DIA. So we felt the case was very persuasive for the kind of organizational structure we came up with. That was recommended by the 9/11 Commission.

Having said that, I am sure it is not perfect. I am sure we are going to learn from it. That is why we have reports required back to Congress after a year's time and by the General Accounting Office Accountability Office in 2 year's time, because we want to make sure we get this right.

I think we have struck the right balance in the organizational structure we propose.

I thank the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, I know Members are eager for us to vote on Senator Lautenberg's amendment, which I believe is the pending amendment. I hope to conclude the debate on that shortly and move to table his amendment. Senator Stevens is in the Chamber and would like to lay down a couple of amendments. I will delay the debate on the Lautenberg amendment until after Senator Stevens.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so Senator Stevens may offer his amendment.

Mr. President, I have enormous respect for the Senator from Alaska. He is an extraordinary Senator, with many years of experience. I do want to assure the Senator from Alaska that, contrary to the implication in his statement, the committee did not adopt the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission to declassify the aggregate budget totals of all the agencies that make up the national intelligence program. We did not adopt that recommendation of the 9/11 Commission because, based on our hearings and the testimony of our witnesses, we concluded that that goes too far and might well reveal information that would be helpful to those who would do us harm.

The only declassification in the Collins-Lieberman bill is the top line aggregate amount for the entire national intelligence program. It does not declassify the specific appropriations amount distributed to agencies such as the National Security Agency, or the Defense Intelligence Agency, or the CIA, even though the 9/11 Commission recommended declassification at that level.

Declassification, the top line, only that aggregate figure which has been estimated in the newspapers many, many times, I believe, will improve congressional and public oversight of the intelligence budget. It will help us with better decisionmaking on resource distribution, and it will make the structure and the management of the intelligence community more transparent.

We asked our witnesses, including the Acting Director of the CIA, John McLaughlin, his views. And he, like most of our other expert witnesses, told us that as long as the specifics of the intelligence budget remain classified, there was no harm to national security to declassify just that top line aggregate amount.

I think we struck the right balance in this regard. What we did is we included a study asking the national intelligence director to report back to us--to the Congress--on whether further declassification was appropriate. But the only step we took was that top line aggregate amount. If you don't declassify that in order to have a separate appropriation, then you end up, I fear, with the status quo--the money going through DOD accounts once again. That greatly weakens the budget authority of the national intelligence director.

Again, I have enormous respect for the Senator from Alaska. I wanted to make clear what our bill does and what it doesn't do, because I think we have reached the right decision.

Yes.

Mr. President, I direct the attention of the Senator from Alaska to line 16 on page 115, which clearly says that:

The President shall disclose to the public for each fiscal

year after fiscal year 2005 the aggregate amount of

appropriations requested . . . for the National Intelligence

Program.

It does not say that we are requiring disclosure of the appropriations for the elements that make up the national intelligence program.

Mr. President, I say respectfully to the Senator from Alaska that that refers to the study on whether there should be further declassification. It does not refer to the disclosure. The disclosure is only--and it is very clearly stated--of the aggregate amount of the appropriations for the national intelligence program.

Mr. President, I will quote Acting CIA Director John McLaughlin from our September 8 hearing on this very issue. He said:

If there is a separate appropriation for the foreign

intelligence program, the national intelligence program, as

distinct from the current arrangement where that

appropriation is buried in the larger Defense Department

bill, I think it would make some sense to declassify the

overall number for the foreign intelligence program.

That was typical of our witnesses.

I also note that the top line has been made public on occasion in the past. It was made public in 1997 and 1998 by the DCI.

At this point there are numerous Senators who are asking what the plan is for today and who are trying to catch planes. I ask for the regular order with respect to Lautenberg amendment No. 3802, and I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes on each side prior to a motion to table the amendment. I further ask for the yeas and nays.

How much more time does the Senator from South Carolina believe he would require?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from South Carolina be accorded up to 10 minutes more for his debate, and then that Senator Lieberman and I have up to 10 minutes for us to use in opposition to the Hollings amendment. Then it is my intention to move to table.

Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina eviscerates the underlying bill. I want to be very clear about that. His amendment takes a radically different approach to intelligence reform. The Hollings amendment creates a national intelligence coordinator and transfers to this individual the responsibility and authority that the Director of Central Intelligence now has as head of the intelligence community. The DCI would remain as head of the CIA and principal adviser to the President.

This approach is completely contrary to the recommendations of the 9/ 11

Commission. It is completely contrary to the report of the congressional joint inquiry. It is completely contrary to numerous government and private sector reports over the past five decades.

The Hollings amendment gives the national intelligence coordinator the responsibility to manage the intelligence community but does not give that individual any additional authority to allow him to accomplish that task. The Hollings amendment also provides that except as otherwise provided by law, the national intelligence coordinator shall not be accountable to Congress regarding the performance of the responsibility of the coordinator. It is difficult to imagine why we would establish such a position with a list of legally defined responsibilities and authorities currently in the National Security Act of 1947, very important responsibilities and authorities which affected the security and the liberty of the American people, and then specifically provide that this individual is not accountable to Congress.

I am strongly opposed to this amendment. It guts the entire Collins- Lieberman bill. I urge my colleagues to defeat it.

Mr. President, I move to table the Hollings amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to table the Lautenberg amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I commend Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison for their amendment to improve the quality of intelligence analysis by creating a red team. Both of them talked to me very early on about the need for this improvement in our bill. Senator Roberts and Senator Mikulski have also been very interested in this issue. I am very pleased they have been able to come together. They have produced an excellent amendment that will improve the quality of intelligence analysis.

I also urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, let me begin by saying that I very much appreciate the distinguished Senator from Virginia, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, working with Senator Lieberman and me to modify his amendment so that it is consistent with the goals of our legislation.

The JICC was suggested by the White House when we drafted our bill. I view it as an important component of the Collins-Lieberman bill because it provides a forum for the national intelligence director to solicit the views of and to receive advice from key Cabinet members on a wide variety of issues.

It is important for the members of the JICC--the Secretaries of State, Defense, Homeland Security, and the Attorney General, and other Departments, Treasury as well--to see the council as a way to communicate their views freely to the NID to help the NID reach the right decisions and to be a forum for a wide variety of issues.

It is also important for the NID to remain firmly in control as chairman of the council, and I believe the modification makes clear that it is the NID who is the chairman and who will regularly convene this council.

Senator Warner's amendment, as modified, meets both those goals. It

strengthens the bill. I can speak on behalf of the ranking member of the committee in urging its adoption. I thank the Senator again for working with us.

Mr. President, I would be happy to consult further with the Senator about his concern in this area. I note that the 9/11 Commission and numerous other commissions have determined that the CIA Director has too many roles right now; that he has three roles. He is the principal adviser to the President for intelligence, he is the head of the CIA, and he is the manager of the intelligence community. There is widespread consensus that is too much for the CIA Director to have, so our legislation alters those roles.

The CIA Director would run the CIA. The national intelligence director would not run the day-to-day operations of the CIA, but the national intelligence director would become the principal adviser to the President on intelligence. The national intelligence director would also be the manager of the national intelligence programs. So we have defined those roles in that manner, but we have not altered the fact that the CIA Director would still be a Presidential appointee, he would still be confirmed by the Senate, and he would still have lots of access, in my view, just as Cabinet members are always going to be able to get their views to the President.

I think the structure the Senator has improved, the joint intelligence community council, strengthens that flow of communication, but that structure is there. I do not believe that is going to be a problem.

I also point out to the Senator that the Senator made an excellent point earlier when he was talking about the need for competitive analysis for a variety of viewpoints to be presented to the President and that we did not see that work as well as it should have in recent cases.

We have put in extensive language in our bill due to amendments authored by Senator Levin, as well as the work Senator Lieberman and I and others have done, that makes very clear, for example, that when a National Intelligence Estimate is produced, that it has to highlight dissenting views. That does not happen now sufficiently. Often those dissenting views are hidden away in a footnote when they really should be up front for us to be aware that there are dissenting views and who has those dissenting views.

Another example: We require these estimates to have a confidence level attached to the prevailing view so we will know how much support that prevailing view has.

So throughout our bill there are requirements to make sure that dissenting views are heard. Indeed, the Rockefeller-Hutchinson amendment we just adopted also strengthens that by having the office of alternative analysis. So I think there are numerous safeguards to make sure that all voices are heard; that competitive analysis is strengthened; that dissenting views are highlighted.

I am certainly open to working with the distinguished Senator to address his concerns. I believe it would work similarly to how the views of the head of the NSA, the NRO, the NGA, and DIA get to the President now through the Secretary of Defense.

Under our bill, the CIA Director clearly reports to the NID, much as the head of the NSA reports to the Secretary of Defense. Nothing prevents the CIA Director or the NSA Director from going to the President, but we have changed the structure.

We are making the NID the principal adviser to the President for intelligence, but I cannot conceive of a situation where the NID would not be relying very heavily on the CIA Director for the advice that he is giving to the President. It would be foolhardy for him not to.

I say to the distinguished Senator that I think the analogy is very similar. The Secretary of Defense is not required to present the views of the NSA to the President. I think this works in a more collaborative way than we are giving the system credit for.

We have to be careful, while we put in all of these safeguards--and I support the chairman's amendment--that we do not create a situation where it is unclear who is the principal adviser to the President. And that, under our bill, is the national intelligence director.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I thank the Senator from Virginia for his contributions. It is always a pleasure to work with him, particularly on an issue that is so important to our Nation's security.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask the Democratic whip that those amendments be interspersed with Republican amendments.

Mr. President, I appreciate the assistance of the assistant Democratic leader. I echo his hope that Members will come to the Chamber tomorrow to offer and debate their amendments. We will delay the votes on those amendments until Monday, but we have an awful lot of work to be done. Senator Lieberman and I will be here tomorrow ready to engage on these amendments. I ask my colleagues to be here as well and help make progress on this very important bill. We are making some progress, but we are not making enough progress and we need to pick up the pace. We need to whittle down that amendment list. We need to have some of those amendments simply go away. I hope that will happen.

Mr. President, the debate now will resume on the amendment offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania. As discussed last night, we have an informal agreement that Senator Roberts would be recognized for--is it 25 minutes, I ask Senator Roberts?

Mr. President, if I can respond to the Democratic leader's inquiry, there was an informal discussion

last night. There was not an order entered, to the best of my knowledge, but an informal agreement that Senator Roberts would be recognized, and it was either 25 or 30 minutes. I am uncertain.

Mr. President, if I could complete my sequencing here. After Senator Roberts, Senator Levin had asked to be recognized on the Specter amendment. They were both here last night, so I want to respect their requests as well.

I wonder if we could arrange for Senator Harkin to speak after the first series of votes today, for 10 minutes.

As part of that sequencing, it would be 10 minutes for Senator Harkin and 10 minutes for Senator Stevens--oh, I am sorry. Senator Stevens is on the bill?

Senator Stevens is going to be speaking on the bill so he has asked for an unlimited amount of time.

Would the Senator yield briefly for a unanimous consent request?

I apologize for interrupting the Senator. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the only amendments remaining to the bill other than the pending amendments be the two lists I now send to the desk; provided further that they be subject to second degrees that are related to the subject matter of the first degree; further, that all other provisions governing the consideration of this bill remain in effect.

Seven plus the pending amendment.

They are indeed.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I certainly understand the intent of the Senator from Pennsylvania in offering this amendment. Indeed, he offered it during the markup of the Governmental Affairs Committee. It was debated at length.

Initially, in considering this issue, I, too, was inclined to believe that the new national intelligence director should have some sort of term of office. However, the testimony we heard through our eight hearings changed my mind in this regard.

Under our legislation, S. 2845, the NID serves as the principal adviser to the President. The individual not only manages the intelligence community and heads up the new national intelligence authority, but serves as the principal adviser to the President. I am stressing that role because I believe that is key to why the director, in fact, should not have a fixed term. It is essential that the NID enjoy the full confidence and trust of the President of the United States. That was a point made by the 9/11 Commission chairman, Tom Kean, at our very first hearing on July 30. But we heard that repeated time and again by our witnesses. All of the former DCIs who came before the committee, representing a variety of times and administrations, were unanimous in their view that the new NID should serve at the pleasure of the President.

The then Acting Director of the CIA John McLaughlin made the point at our September 8 hearing that for the NID to successfully clarify our assignment of serving as the principal adviser to the President, he must enjoy the President's trust and confidence.

Consider a situation where the Presidency changes parties during that 10-year-period. It would be very awkward for a new President of a different party to inherit the national intelligence director from the previous administration. Their world views and philosophy may have nothing in common. Yet the President has to have a close and trusting relationship with the national intelligence director. The President should be able to choose his or her own person for that critical post.

Proponents of having a 10-year term have frequently compared this proposal to the 10-year term of the Director of the FBI. I would note that I asked Director Mueller whether he thought the new NID should have a 10-year term similar to his. He said he did not think a 10-year term or any fixed term was appropriate for the national intelligence director. He said the role of the FBI Director is very different from the role of the national intelligence director.

Over and over again during our hearings, Senator Lieberman and I raised this question with the witnesses because we, too, were trying to reach the right determination. Over and over again, the advice was the same, whether it was the 9/11 Commission, the Acting Director of the CIA, the former Directors of the CIA, or Director Mueller of the FBI. Over and over again, they advised against setting a term.

So we need to create a position where the individual will enjoy the full confidence and trust of the President of the United States. That is the only way that individual can effectively carry out the role he is assigned in this legislation to serve as the President's principal intelligence adviser.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Specter amendment No. 3761, regarding a 10-year term, provided that no amendment be in order to the amendment prior to that vote. I also ask consent that following that vote, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Specter amendment No. 3706 regarding the NID consolidation, again with no second degrees in order

to the amendment prior to the vote on the first degree. And finally, I ask that the order with respect to the statements of Senator Harkin and Senator Stevens begin following those two votes.

I would so modify the request.

I would say to the Senator that we would welcome people coming to the floor with their amendments. Generally, these amendments are not breaking down along party lines.

Senator Shelby and Senator DeWine wish to speak.

I believe we are very near the end of the debate.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I will find the specific language to show the Senator from Ohio. I have the language. The NID would establish collection and analysis requirements for the Intelligence Community, determine collection and analysis priorities, manage and issue collection and analysis tasking, and resolve conflicts in the tasking abilities of the intelligence community. So the language is very clear that the NID would have enhanced authority to resolve the kinds of conflicts that sometimes do occur now on the allocation of satellite resources, for example.

The Senator is correct. Perhaps it will be of some comfort to the Senator from Ohio to know that the language in this regard was suggested to our committee by Senator Roberts and comes from his bill. There is very strong language regarding the issue the Senator has raised.

As I indicated to the Senator from Ohio--and I thought I was very clear in answering his question--it says the NID can issue directions in the collection and analysis tasking. I think the language is very clear that the answer is yes.

The term of art is the issue. That is the correct legal language to use. It is adopted from Senator Roberts' bill. My answer is yes.

If the Senator would yield on that point, I do not want the Senator to mistakenly believe there are no changes in our bill with regard to current law. There is a very critical change.

If the Senator will yield?

There is a very significant change, as I said to the Senator when he first raised this very important question. We recognize that the current Director of the CIA cannot issue tasking, cannot require the collection of information, under this section of the law. That is why we took language recommended by Senator Roberts, included it in the bill that I believe the Senator from Ohio may have cosponsored, which strengthened that authority by adding the language, ``issue and manage collection and analysis tasking.'' That is not in current law.

If the Senator would yield for a response.

My answer would be the same. The NID has the authority, has the power, to use the words of Senator from Ohio, to issue these orders, to task these agencies to carry out these directives.

I note that because the NID has the authority to manage the budgets of these agencies, he has a pretty big stick to use as enforcement.

Madam President, I think the Senator from Ohio is raising excellent, important questions in this debate, but he is creating a misimpression of what the bill does with regard to budget authority.

This is not 1 year off or 2 years off. The NID has budget execution authority, not just putting the budget together for presentation and recommendation to the President; he executes the budget as the year goes by. He has strong authority to reprogram funds with congressional approval and notification, I hasten to say, and to transfer funds.

He has extensive authority to transfer personnel. He has the right under our bill to appoint the heads of these agencies with concurrence from the Secretary of Defense. That is a major change from current law.

If the Senator from Ohio is saying, as he is, that the NID should have direct line authority over the day-to-day operations of these combat support agencies, I disagree with the Senator from Ohio. I believe it does not make sense and, in fact, the NID could not handle running these agencies day to day. As Senator Levin indicated earlier, you would have to create an enormous supervisory staff within the office of the NID if you were going to transfer that authority from the Secretary of Defense. Clearly, the NID has the authority to direct the collection and analysis of information by the heads of these agencies, but I do not think he should be running them day to day.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

If the Senator will yield so I can respond to his question.

There is very strong authority for the NID to transfer personnel who are working within the national intelligence program throughout the Federal Government and, indeed, I would envision the staffing of the National Counterterrorism Center would come from the NID taking linguists, analysts, operatives, collectors--all sorts of expertise--from the various intelligence agencies. And I know for a fact we need to give the NID that power because I visited with the head of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center who does not have that power and finds it very difficult to get the personnel resources he needs.

Will the Senator yield for a response?

The DIA employees who are part of the national intelligence program, yes, the answer is yes. DIA employees who are part of DOD's tactical intelligence programs, which are outside the scope of the authority of the NID, the answer in that case would be no. So it depends. But if they are part of the national intelligence program, which thousands of DIA employees are, the answer is yes.

I disagree with the Senator, so I do not know how to respond. I was saying the NID does not run the day-to-day, daily operations of the NSA, for example.

If the Senator will yield for a response.

Madam President, I direct the Senator from Ohio to the exact language in the bill. On page 27, starting on line 21:

(C) in accordance with procedures to be developed by the

National Intelligence Director, transfer personnel of the

intelligence community funded through the National

Intelligence Program from one element of the intelligence

community to another element of the intelligence community;

I think that language is crystal clear that the NID could, indeed, take a linguist from the counterterrorism division of the FBI and transfer that individual to the National Counterterrorism Center, or an analyst from DIA who is funded through the national intelligence program and shift that individual to the counterterrorism center. I think it is very clear.

Mr. President, I know the Senator from Arizona is in the Chamber to offer his amendment so I will speak only very briefly. Senator Lautenberg's amendment is an improvement over the amendment offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania because it is a shorter term and it does allow the President to remove the NID without specifying a cause, but I still find it problematic.

We are talking about the individual who is going to be the principal adviser to the President. The witnesses were virtually unanimous in advising us that that individual has to have the trust and confidence of the President and that it would be a mistake to set a term.

I argue further against this amendment in the context of the Specter amendment. In light of the fact that the Senator from Arizona is waiting, I will not repeat those arguments at this time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided between the two votes.

Prior to the second vote.

Mr. President, under the previous order we are now going to proceed to a vote on Senator Specter's amendment, No. 3761. That is the amendment that would set the 10-year term for the national intelligence director. I move to table the amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I would like to split the 1 minute on the opponents' side, 30 seconds for myself and 30 seconds for the Senator from Connecticut.

I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania, do you want to go first?

Mr. President, in deciding to keep the NSA and the NGA within the Department of Defense, we were mindful of the fact that these agencies are combat support agencies. We do not want to sever the link between these agencies and the Secretary of Defense. We have already given the NID strong power in terms of budget, in terms of appointing the heads of these agencies, with concurrence from the Secretary of Defense. I urge opposition to the amendment.

I move to table the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Iraq and al-Qaida

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona, the Senator from Montana, and the Senator from Mississippi for working on this issue. I very much appreciate that. I urge adoption of the amendment by a voice vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Arizona for his amendment. It would implement five important recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that would improve our national preparedness. This amendment would support efforts underway to ensure that Federal, State, and local entities all use what is known as the incident command system. I know that our first responders in Maine are leaders in the Nation in using and training with this system. They have told me how critical it is for effective response to terrorist attacks for there to be a working command structure in place. This can only be accomplished with training and organization before an attack or other such emergency.

Senator McCain's amendment would enable the first responders protecting our Nation's Capital to save lives regardless of which side of the Potomac they happened to be on. It does that by establishing an interstate mutual aid compact in the Washington, DC area. It would encourage coordination and communication in urban areas. It would encourage private sector preparedness and help private industry to be better prepared for an attack as well. It would ensure that a nonregulatory, voluntary program be established to promote preparedness within the private sector, using a consistent methodology to address preparedness.

Finally, it encourages the Department of Homeland Security to take a hard look at critical infrastructure, which the Department is already doing, and report to Congress about its findings.

I urge my colleagues to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. President, I want to give my colleagues an update on an amendment that was offered yesterday. It is an amendment that was offered by Senator Wyden on behalf of himself, Senator Snowe, Senator Graham, and Senator Lott. I believe we have reached an agreement on a compromise to that amendment, which deals with declassification. Actually, I recall the Presiding Officer, Senator Cornyn, is also a cosponsor of the amendment.

We have been able to work out an alternative to the amendment. We are just waiting for language to come from legislative counsel. It is my hope, and I believe the hope of Senator Lieberman, that we will be able to dispose of that amendment this afternoon.

Mr. President, I express my appreciation to Senator Wyden. He is always so good to work with on so many issues, and we have enjoyed working on this one as well.

I want to recognize that Senator Lott was also very involved in the negotiations and working with Senator Lieberman and me to modify this amendment in a way to preserve the goal of the amendment, and yet to address some concerns we had about creating a new board, unnecessary bureaucracy, or some duplication.

As I indicated when Senator Wyden first offered his amendment, I believe he is addressing a very real problem, and that is improving the way we classify and declassify documents. I know the members of the Intelligence Committee have been very frustrated with the process that they went through in developing a lengthy report, only to have so much of it redacted and to have no good way of appealing those redactions, no good way of challenging what many members of that committee, on both sides of the aisle, viewed as excessive secrecy or excessive classification.

I have been concerned that the original amendment intruded unnecessarily into the President's constitutional prerogative and duplicated some of the provisions in our bill. I believe the changes we have worked out so cooperatively go a very long way toward addressing the concerns we had while advancing the goal.

Rather than creating a new board to review the classification policy, Senator Wyden's amendment would now ensure that Congress has an opportunity to make comments regarding the Presidential review of classification policies already established under the Collins-Lieberman bill, and even more importantly to the Senator who has said we need an independent place for Congress to go to bring appeals regarding classification decisions, the revised amendment has agreed to build upon a board that already exists, the Public Interest Declassification Board. The amendment would change the name of that board to the Independent National Security Classification Board. This board was established in 2001, but it is still being put into place.

Under the Wyden amendment, it will have specific authority to hear appeals of classification decisions from specified congressional committees. The board would then make a recommendation to the President, which the President could either accept or reject. If the President rejects the board's decision, then the President, as the Senator indicated, would have to send a written justification of that decision to Congress. This framework helped to address some of the concerns we had about the original amendment.

I will note that this is not the administration's favorite amendment, even in the revised form, but I believe we have struck a fair balance and I am prepared to recommend that we accept the amendment once we get it. I understand it is going to be here momentarily. There were a few technical glitches.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Cornyn, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

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

Mr. President, this proposal amends the Cohen-Clinger Act to explicitly require Federal agencies to emphasize information security from the earliest possible stages of a new system's IT capital planning and investment decisionmaking process.

The Office of Management and Budget has instructed agencies through its budget guidance that information security must be a vital part of the capital planning and investment control process. Amending the Cohen-Clinger Act to codify this guidance will ensure that the law reflects a certain threat environment in cyberspace and requires that information security be an integral part of the Federal acquisition process for the long term.

Security should be reinforced as we migrate toward a more interoperable environment. I believe this amendment is helpful. It is my understanding that it has been cleared on both sides.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Coleman, I send an amendment to 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, Senator Coleman has offered an amendment that would strike the language in our bill that merges the Homeland Security Council into the National Security Council. I note that the administration yesterday in its Statement of Administration Policy, in which it endorsed passage of our legislation, expressed considerable concern about the provisions that would reorganize the President's internal policy staff by merging the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council. The administration feels strongly that Congress should not legislate and make permanent the internal organization of the President's own executive offices or otherwise limit the flexibility needed to respond quickly to threats or attacks.

In looking further at this issue, I agree with the concerns raised by the administration. Senator Coleman's amendment striking the merger of those two councils within the Executive Office of the President is acceptable to me.

That is what his amendment would accomplish. I believe the amendment has been cleared on both sides and I urge its passage.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Wyden, I send a modification of the Wyden amendment No. 3704 to the desk. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be so modified.

Mr. President, this modification was debated earlier this evening. There is no further debate on the amendment as modified.

I move to reconsider the amendment and I move to lay it on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee for coming forward this evening and laying down this amendment. He has explained very clearly the purpose. I very much appreciate that explanation.

As the Senator is aware, the ranking member of the committee had a commitment for this evening. I would like to hold the amendment over until tomorrow morning. But I am very grateful to the Senator for laying down the amendment this evening so that we can continue to make progress on this bill. As always, he has given his proposal a great deal of thought. I appreciate the parallels that he is drawing to the provisions of the Goldwater-Nickles Act and the fact that the members of Joint Chiefs are allowed to present their views independently to Congress and to the President. I very much appreciate his laying down the amendment tonight. I look forward to having further consideration in the morning.

Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee is always constructive in every way. I very much appreciate the thought and the knowledge he has and the depth with which he explores important issues.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business, with Senators able to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 29, 2004, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``The 9/11 Commission and Efforts to Identify and Combat Terrorist Financing.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 29, 2004, at 3 p.m., to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, September 29, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting on pending Committee matters, to be followed immediately by an oversight hearing on Lobbying Practices Involving Indian Tribes regarding allegations of misconduct associated with lobbying and related activities.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 29 at 2:30 p.m.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 2378, to provide for the conveyance of certain public land in Clark County, NV, for use as a heliport; S. 2410, to promote wildland firefighter safety; H.R. 1651, to provide for the exchange of land within the Sierra National Forest, California, and for other purposes; H.R. 2400, to amend the Organic Act of Guam for the purposes of clarifying the local judicial structure of Guam; H.R. 3874, to convey for public purposes certain Federal lands in Riverside County, CA, that have been identified for disposal; H.R. 4170, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to recruit volunteers to assist with, or facilitate, the activities of various agencies and offices of the Department of the Interior; and Senate Resolution 387, a resolution commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Wilderness Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space be authorized to meet on September 29, 2004, at 2 pm, on Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Exploring the Controversy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Claude Berube, a legislative fellow in my office, be granted the privileges of the floor during the debate on S. 2845, the intelligence reform bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Shuhart, a detailee of the Governmental Affairs Committee, be accorded the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on S. 2845.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Dole, I ask unanimous consent that John Ulrich, a military fellow in her office, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of the intelligence reform bill.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his comments on this important issue, and rise to add my own remarks on the critical importance of building a strong homeland security strategy. As members of the Governmental Affairs Committee labored over legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security, we became well acquainted with the daunting array of programs and policies that are part of our homeland security effort. In creating the Department, and through efforts we have undertaken since that time, the committee has worked to help supply the Department of Homeland Security with the tools it will need to be successful. Our oversight work has demonstrated the need to have a strong national strategy to guide our homeland efforts. I agree with my colleague that GAO and others have identified ways in which our homeland security strategy could be strengthened and updated. This legislation will facilitate improvements by requiring that the administration lay out its homeland security strategy anew, and coordinate this strategy with its annual budget requests. This should bring out strategic vision into sharper view, and ensure that adequate resources are sought and secured to carry out homeland priorities.

financial accountability

The Senator is correct.

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

Mr. President, last evening, on behalf of myself, Senator Carper, and Senator Lieberman, I offered an amendment to rewrite the formula for the Homeland Security Grant Program. The amendment we brought before the Senate was unanimously reported as a separate bill by the Governmental Affairs Committee.

We should always keep in mind that should there be another terrorist attack on our country, people will be calling 911; they will not be calling the Washington, DC, area code. It is our first responders--our firefighters, our police officers, our emergency medical personnel--who are always on the scene first. We know that from the tragic attacks of 9/11, and, as Secretary Ridge has pointed out many times, homeland security starts with the security of our hometowns. For this reason, we have come together in a bipartisan way, representing large States and small States, to draft the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act, and we have offered it as an amendment to this bill. It would streamline and strengthen the assistance we provide to our States, communities, and first responders who protect our homeland.

The underlying Homeland Security Act contains virtually no guidance on how the Department of Homeland Security is to assist State and local governments with their homeland security needs. In fact, the 187-page Homeland Security Act mentions the issue of grants to first responders in but a single paragraph. The decisions on how Federal dollars should be spent or how much money should be allocated to home were left to another day when Congress enacted that important legislation, but it is now time for Congress to finally address this critical issue.

We know that much of the burden for homeland security has fallen on the shoulders of State and local officials across America, those who are truly on the front lines. In crafting the amendment before us, the Governmental Affairs Committee listened first and foremost to our first responders. We held three hearings on this vital topic and negotiated for 2 years to produce the amendment that Senator Carper, Senator Lieberman, and I are offering. The bipartisan measure was approved by the Governmental Affairs Committee by a 16-to-0 vote, and it currently has 29 cosponsors, including the distinguished Presiding Officer.

There are several groups that are active with first responders who are supporting our legislation. They include the National Governor's Association, Advocates for EMS, National Council of State Legislators, Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, and the Fraternal Order of Police.

As you can see, Mr. President, our approach has widespread support. It is supported by Senators from big States, such as Michigan and Ohio--and I want to particularly commend the Senators from those States for their hard work on this legislation--and small States, such as my home State of Maine and the State of the Senator from Delaware.

The wide breadth of support demonstrates the balanced approach our amendment takes to homeland security funding. It recognizes that threat-based funding is a critical part of homeland security funding. It does so by almost tripling the homeland security funding awarded based on threat and risk. This has been a particular concern to Senator Clinton, who has brought this issue before the Senate a couple of times.

The amendment, however, also recognizes that first responders in each and every State are on the front lines and have needs. Therefore, the bill maintains a minimum allocation for each State.

The legislation will also improve the coordination and the administration of homeland security funding by promoting one-stop shopping for homeland security funding opportunities. It establishes a clearinghouse to assist first responders and State and local governments in accessing homeland security grant information and other resources within the new department. This clearinghouse will help improve access to information, coordinate technical assistance for vulnerability and threat assessments, provide information regarding homeland security best practices, and compile information regarding homeland security equipment purchased with Federal funds.

Establishment of these improvements will mean first responders can spend more time training to save lives and less time filling out unnecessary paperwork.

This amendment will establish a fair and balanced approach to allocating this critical funding. I am very pleased to have worked with the Senator from Delaware on this and I yield to him for any comments he might have, unless, of course, the ranking member would like to speak first.

Mr. President, before the Senator from Delaware makes his comments, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Coleman, be added as a cosponsor to the underlying bill, S. 2845, and that he also be added as a cosponsor to the pending amendment.

Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota has been one of our most diligent committee members in attending all of the hearings we held throughout the August recess. He was an active member of the committee throughout the debate on this legislation, and I am very grateful to have his support and cosponsorship.

I say to the Senator from Connecticut that I think along with the cosponsorships we picked up yesterday, this is a sign that as people look at our legislation and learn more about it, it is gaining even more support.

Will the Senator yield on that point?

I thank the Senator for his generous comments. I know Senator Lieberman joins me in commending the Senator from Delaware for his active participation in our hearings. I believe the Senator from Delaware, as the Senator from Minnesota, made an extraordinary effort to be there, to question the witnesses, and all of us now quote the Senator from Delaware in various places and occasions, in reminding our colleagues that:

The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.

Those words have become inexorably linked to the debate on intelligence reform. We thank the Senator for that as well.