Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Leahy for working with Senator Lieberman and me on his amendment. It requires two reports related to watch lists: one on the criteria for listing a name on the Terrorist Screening Center's consolidated watch list, and another on the effect of the ``automatic selectee'' and ``no-fly'' lists on privacy and civil liberties. We worked with him to incorporate some modifications that make the amendment acceptable to the two managers and incorporate some recommendations from the administration. I am well aware of some of the problems with the watch list. A constituent of mine from Camden, ME, a retired physician, has the misfortune to have a name that is identical to a name that is on the watch list. Every time he flies, he encounters great difficulties. I believe the Senator's amendment will help to address that. It is important to ensure we are safe and that those who want to do us harm do not have access to aircraft. But at the same time we want to make sure that law-abiding travelers are not impeded from conducting their travels simply because they have the misfortune to share a name with someone on the watch list. The process required by the Senator, I think, will be helpful. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Ms. COLLINS. Yes. Amendment No. 3915, As Modified

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, of all the testimony presented to the Committee on Governmental Affairs during our eight hearings on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission perhaps none was more powerful than that of Mary Fetchet. Her son, Brad, died in the World Trade Center on September 11. Here are a few of her words. She said: When American lives are at stake, indifference or inertia is unacceptable. When critical reforms are implemented to make our country safer, I will know that neither Brad's life nor the lives of nearly 3,000 others who perished on September 11 were lost in vain. Throughout this debate it has been the families of the victims of 9/ 11 who have reminded us of why we are here and why these reforms are so important. In passing the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004--as I believe we will later this afternoon--the Senate will reject indifference and inertia. We will endure critical reforms to make our country safer. We will declare that the lives lost to terrorism were not lost in vain. The action we take in their memory will benefit people of good will in this country and throughout the world today and for many years to come. This legislation will make the most sweeping changes in our intelligence structures in more than 50 years. It is the result of enormous effort. The issues are complex and many. The timetable was tight, but the stakes were so high and the times so dangerous that we simply could not delay this urgent task. Now we are on the threshold of getting the job done and getting it done right. I am deeply grateful to my good friend Senator Lieberman. This legislation would not have been possible without his tireless effort and his bipartisan spirit. From the moment we were first assigned the task of developing this legislation on July 22nd, our fellow members of the Governmental Affairs Committee dug in with energy and intellect. I am grateful to the Presiding Officer as one of the committee members for his contributions. It was an August recess we will never forget. We are very grateful to the leaders of the Senate. Senator Frist and Senator Daschle had the confidence in our committee that they felt they could charge us with this enormous and critical undertaking. Our whips, Senator Reid and Senator McConnell, have also been very helpful. Senator Reid has been a constant presence in the Chamber throughout this debate. We could not have accomplished all that we did without our dedicated staff, led by Michael Bopp and Joyce Rechtschaffen. We have worked so closely with them. We have worked arm in arm. They have literally worked day and night to produce this bill. I am so proud of their extraordinary efforts. Our staffs were supplemented by hard-working detailees from the CIA, the DIA, and other agencies, as well as by members of the Commission staff who, rather than going back to their previous jobs and lives, worked with us on the committee to help give the benefit of their expertise. Without the efforts of all these staff members we never could have gotten the job done. I am very grateful to all of them. This legislation, however, is not merely the result of months of extraordinary effort by our committee or of the expert and insightful testimony we heard from more than two dozen witnesses at eight hearings. Rather, it builds upon a rock-solid foundation laid by the 9/ 11 Commission and the investigation that it conducted over 20 months, including 19 days of hearings with 160 witnesses. I thank all Commission members for all of their extraordinary effort. The need for reform in our intelligence system was not, however, suddenly revealed in hearings spurred by one catastrophic failure 3 years ago. The failures that led to that day are numerous and reach back many years. They were overlooked in terrorist attack after terrorist attack for more than a decade. The call for reform was made in studies, commission reports, and legislation going back half a century. It is a call we can no longer ignore. Our committee was guided by clear principles. An intelligence community designed for the Cold War must be transformed into one designed to win the war against global terrorism and future national security threats. The new structure must build upon the strengths of the old and recognize the considerable improvements made since September 11. The unique experience, expertise, and viewpoints of the 15 agencies that comprise our intelligence community are assets that must be preserved. The barriers to information sharing, cooperation, and coordination within the community, what the 9/11 Commission calls stovepipes, must be demolished. In their place must come a structure with the agility the times and the threats demand--not another layer of bureaucracy. We were determined, in crafting this new structure, that we not infringe upon the freedoms that define us as Americans. The legislation that came out of our committee by a unanimous vote adhered to these important principles and it has been strengthened by the vigorous debate we have had in the Senate during the past week. The debate has not merely been vigorous but also highly informed. Throughout these proceedings, it has been clear the commitment that drove our committee to act is shared by the full Senate. From the authorities of the national intelligence director to the structure of our transformed intelligence community to the protection of civil liberties, many critical issues have been raised, debated, and resolved. I particularly thank the members of the Committee on Armed Services, the Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Appropriations Committee, particularly their chairs and ranking members. Their knowledge and their input have been invaluable. Many important issues have been raised and will be resolved as this transformation continues. One of the most remarkable aspects of this debate has been the widespread recognition that intelligence reform is not a single act but an ongoing process. The fundamental obligation of government is to protect its citizens and those protections must evolve to meet new threats. This legislation brings about much-needed reforms and it creates an environment in which this ongoing process can continue. I began these remarks with a quote from a mother who has suffered the worst loss any parent can endure. She turned her loss into positive advocacy. It is Senator Byrd, however, who inspires me to end these remarks with a quote from the Constitution. To form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . . The opening lines of our Constitution provide, in some ways, a job description of America's Government that is a miracle of clarity as well as an awesome challenge. Rarely does one piece of legislation encompass all of its elements or do we have the opportunity to do so in a way that clearly demonstrates the spirit that animates it. This is one of those rare times. Let us do what the times demand. Let us act to approve this legislation this afternoon and by doing so make our country safer.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Alaska for his cooperation and his many helpful suggestions for improving this bill. I have great affection and respect for the senior Senator. I very much appreciate the fact that he is going to support this bill on final passage. That means a great deal to me and will certainly assist us. I look forward to continuing to consult with him as we move through the conference process, and I will tell the senior Senator from Alaska that I am very relieved today to see that he is not wearing his ``Incredible Hulk'' tie but, rather, a very restrained tie from some national museum, I believe. I know that bodes well for the day ending well. Again, I thank the Senator. I very much enjoy working with him.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the yeas and nays had been ordered. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the yeas and nays on this amendment be vitiated and that we have a voice vote.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first, I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for working so closely with Mr. Lieberman and me on this very important issue to set forth a process for determining what intelligence assets belong in the NIP, the national intelligence program, versus the joint military intelligence program and the tactical program. The Collins-Lieberman bill gives the national intelligence director strong budgetary authority over the national intelligence program. Senator Lieberman and I envision that his program will be composed of the intelligence assets that serve national purposes, meaning those that pertain to the interests of more than one department. In the long run, I strongly believe the budgets for the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office should be wholly within the national intelligence program. Currently, these agencies have split budgets, and the heads of these agencies tell us that leads to a great deal of administrative inefficiency. Now, it is possible that some intelligence assets from the Department of Defense's Joint Military Intelligence Program may ultimately be moved to the national intelligence program, but, of course, military intelligence assets that principally serve joint or tactical military needs should stay within the Department of Defense, and I think the language is very clear on this point. Through this amendment, we have tried to address concerns that both Senators have raised. I think the compromise language does address and alleviate those concerns. The reviews that are underway will help us better define the parts of the intelligence budget that will be completed within 1 year after the effective date, in one case 60 days, in the case that Senator Levin is concerned with the three activities in the Defense Intelligence Agency. The reviews mandated in this compromise amendment will provide a rational process for determining which assets belong in the national intelligence program and which do not. I very much appreciate the cooperation of our colleagues, and I do urge adoption of the amendment.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment that is at the desk be agreed to, the committee- reported amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 754, S. 1134.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2796 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment that is at the desk be agreed to, the committee-reported substitute, as amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 744, H.R. 1417.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, the Collins-Lieberman bill grants the national intelligence director the authority to transfer personnel within the national intelligence program to meet higher priorities. This is extremely important authority because we want to make sure the NID can, for example, staff up the National Counterterrorism Center with individuals from a variety of agencies, including military personnel who may be at the Defense Intelligence Agency, for example. But the compromise that we have reached addresses two important concerns. One, it puts a 3-year limit on the length of time for this personnel. That is important because we don't want to disrupt the military careers of individuals who are temporarily transferred. Second, it makes clear that we are talking about slots, or billets, and not individual members of the military. In other words, the NID cannot say: I want ``Colonel Murkowski'' to go to the National Counterterrorism Center. Instead, the NID would say: I want a linguist to go to the National Counterterrorism Center, or describe what the slot may be. I think this is a good compromise on this issue, and it leaves intact the strong authority of the national intelligence director, while addressing the legitimate concerns raised by Senator Levin.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am going to have Senator Levin first discuss this issue, and then Senator Lieberman and I will respond.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I call up a second-degree amendment to that amendment. The second degree is numbered 3962. I ask unanimous consent that it be considered.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed to the consideration of Levin amendment No. 3809, as modified.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. COLLINS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.