Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I will be putting into the record a list of the Senate conferees because each of them contributed in extraordinary ways to this bill. I will be making comments about some of them and their particular contributions later in the debate today.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, before the Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized, I have a unanimous consent request. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator McCain be allocated 5 minutes of my time at some point during the debate today.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, in New England, we have an old expression: The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes us a little longer. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 before us today at times seemed to be an impossible goal. So it took us a little bit longer. It has been a long and arduous journey to reach this point today, but the extraordinary perseverance of the 9/11 Commission, the families of the victims of the attacks on our country, the conferees, our talented staff, our leaders, and, most of all, the President of the United States brought us to this point today. We would not be at this historic moment without the informed, strong, and bipartisan leadership of my good friend, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman. I am deeply grateful to him for his leadership and for working in partnership with me. When Senator Lieberman and I were first assigned this task by our Senate leaders back in late July, we pledged to work together and to recognize that when it comes to matters of national security, there is no place for partisanship. We worked from the very beginning to forge a bipartisan bill, and I am very pleased that the conference agreement we bring before the Senate today is a bipartisan agreement. I am confident that later today it will receive a strong bipartisan vote. But it was Senator Lieberman's determination, his leadership, and his commitment to this cause that made it possible. It has been a great pleasure to work with him, and I look forward to many future collaborations. I am also very proud of all of our colleagues on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. They worked so hard. From the very first hearing that we held in late July to the completion of the conference agreement over the weekend, they were there every step of the way. No leaders of a conference could ever have had more devoted and dedicated conferees than Senator Lieberman and I had. We were also fortunate to be blessed with an outstanding staff. Both Senator Lieberman's staff, and my staff, headed by Michael Bopp, have worked countless hours over the last 4\1/2\ months. They sacrificed family vacations, and they have sacrificed a great deal of sleep. They have been here night and day working because they so believed in this legislation. We could not have done it without them. On the House side, I want to thank Speaker Hastert. His chief of staff devoted hundreds of hours to assisting in these negotiations. Congressman Pete Hoekstra and Representative Jane Harman led the conferees on the House side. They did outstanding work. They were absolutely committed to the principle of crafting legislation that would make America safer and more secure. Throughout this process, President Bush has provided outstanding leadership. I would say that without the help of the President of the United States and his Vice President, we would not be here today. Their intervention at critical points throughout the debate was absolutely essential in helping us to forge the compromises that were necessary to move this bill along. We all owe a great debt to the members and the staff of the 9/11 Commission. I have worked very closely with the chairman and vice chairman, Gov. Tom Kean and former Representative Lee Hamilton. The work they did, their leadership, their investigations, their interviews of 1,200 people in 10 countries provided a solid foundation for the recommendations they made and for the reforms included in this bill. I am very pleased that we have their endorsement. They said: We believe this is a good bill and a strong bill. We believe it will make our country safer and more secure. We also believe that the essential elements of the Commission's recommendations remain intact. We are of the firm view what this conference report deserves the support of the House and the Senate. But, Mr. President, perhaps the greatest debt of all is owed to the families of the 9/11 victims. In their profound loss, they found courage and determination. Their knowledge has contributed greatly to our debate, and their passion constantly reminded us of why we are here and what is at stake. They never let us give up. They refused to let us fail. I am grateful to Senator Frist and Senator Daschle for assigning our committee this important task. They showed great confidence in us, and I am pleased we did not let them down. This legislation addresses the alarming flaws in our national intelligence structure that were so horribly and painfully exposed on that black September morning more than 3 years ago. It does what nearly a half century of studies and legislation calling for intelligence reform failed to do. It is legislation whose time has finally come. The legislation implements the major recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. We are rebuilding a structure that was designed for a different enemy in a different time, a structure that was designed for the Cold War and has not proved agile enough to deal with the threats of the 21st century. We have transformed that structure into one with the agility needed to respond to international terrorism, rogue states, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the other challenges and threats of the 21st century. The legislation reforms the intelligence community and it gives us the tools to respond to threats of which we may not even be aware at this point. It is fitting that this legislation comes to a final vote during the week when we pause to remember the events of December 7, 1941. Just as the National Security Act of 1947 was passed to prevent another Pearl Harbor, the Intelligence Reform Act will help us prevent another 9/11. I am not saying that this legislation will prevent future terrorist attacks, but it will increase the capabilities of the intelligence community and help us improve the opportunity to better detect, prevent, and, if necessary, respond to attacks on our country. The four primary components of this legislation are the creation of a director of national intelligence, the establishment of a national counterterrorism center, the creation of a civil liberties board, and strong information-sharing provisions. There are also many other provisions in this bill that improve border security, that improve transportation security, that set a new direction in our foreign policy. This is a comprehensive approach that embodies many--indeed, most--of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The new director of national intelligence will be a strong position with clear and effective authority to build and execute the intelligence budget. The DNI will be a dramatic improvement over the structure we have today. For the first time, we will have, in the words of Secretary of State Colin Powell, an empowered quarterback for our intelligence team. To illustrate why this is important, why these authorities are crucial, let us consider a passage from the 9/11 Commission Report. In late 1998, it had become apparent to CIA Director George Tenet that al- Qaida was a growing and deadly threat to the people of this country, so on December 4 of that year, he issued a memorandum that said the following: We are at war. I want no resources or people spared in this effort, either inside CIA or the Community. Now, that is a pretty clear, concise, direct order from the head of the intelligence community. According to the Commission, the memorandum had virtually no impact. One reason it had so little overall effect on mobilizing the resources of the intelligence community is that the Director of the CIA, beyond the direct control of the CIA, has very little authority over the funding, the people, and the other resources in the intelligence community. This legislation will ensure that in the future, when such a clear, concise order is issued, it will mobilize and galvanize the resources we can bring to bear. The second important key component in this bill is the creation of the National Counterterrorism Center. This will build on the good work already being done by the Terrorist Threat Integration Center created by the President through an Executive order. The NCTC will help demolish the information stovepipes that the 9/11 Commission found and it will replace them, it will turn them into conduits for information sharing across the intelligence community. The NCTC will also conduct strategic operational planning to coordinate the agencies that are planning our response to al-Qaida and the other threats to our national security. Throughout the debate on this bill, in addition to improving the ability of the intelligence agencies to cooperate and coordinate their efforts, we have also been mindful of our troops fighting on the front lines in the war against terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both Senator Lieberman and I are privileged to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee. I contend that our current system has not always served our troops well. It did not predict the insurgency that has cost us so many lives in Iraq. We owe it to our troops on the battlefields, as well as to our civilians at home, to improve the quality of intelligence they receive, and I believe, as does Secretary Powell, this bill will do just that. I emphasize that nothing in this bill in any way hinders or impairs military operations or readiness. To the contrary, I believe this legislation will help improve the reliability and the quality of intelligence provided to our troops. Another important provision of this bill would implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission by creating a civil liberties board. As we increase the power of Government to deal with the threat of terrorism, we must be mindful to preserve those freedoms that define us as Americans. We would be handing the terrorists a victory if we were to compromise the civil liberties Americans cherish. This board will help make sure we strike the right balance. Finally, other key provisions of this bill, for which Senator Durbin deserves great credit, are provisions that will improve the sharing of information across our intelligence agencies and throughout the Federal Government. We know from the extensive review of the 9/11 Commission that various agencies throughout our Government had pieces of the puzzle that had it been assembled might have allowed them to prevent the attacks on our country on 9/11. We need to make sure we have a culture in our Government of assembling the pieces of that puzzle, of sharing information. I believe the Counterterrorism Center, the information-sharing provisions, and having a DNI will all improve and remedy that problem. The 9/11 Commission has told us repeatedly of the valiant and talented men and women we have in our intelligence agencies, and I salute their good work. I believe today that we will be giving them the tools they need to be more effective. This legislation provides those good people with a good structure. Time, commitment, and perseverance have brought us this far. I urge my colleagues to join us in completing the journey by giving this landmark legislation an overwhelming vote later this afternoon. This legislation will implement the most sweeping significant reforms of our intelligence community in more than 50 years. The reforms are long overdue, and they will help to make our Nation more secure. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, Don Nickles first came to the Senate in 1980 as a young man of 31 with a vision. He now leaves us, 24 years later, with a record we all can envy and a reputation we all should emulate. There are a lot of words that can be used to describe this man. Perhaps these five describe him best: ``As good as his word.'' In his eloquent eulogy to Ronald Reagan this summer, Don said that those who came to Washington after the watershed election of 1980, ``considered ourselves part of the soldiers in the field trying to get an agenda done to expand freedom.'' There is no more noble an agenda than the expansion of freedom, and he has been a devoted soldier to that cause. He has been a strong advocate for our Armed Forces, dedicated to the defense of our Nation and to the expansion of liberty around the world. He has been equally devoted to the freedom that comes from responsible, less intrusive and more accountable government. He is a champion of effective economic-growth policies, and of tax reform that encourages investment and helps build strong families and communities. Don Nickles has always been of the side of the American people. His tenure as chairman of the Budget Committee will long be held up as a model of effective leadership, a cooperative spirit wedded to rock- solid principles. Don comes from a small State and from a background in small business. That we have not always agreed on every issue is insignificant. What does matter is the values we share and the friendship that is the result. Don is much more than just an especially effective legislator and a very good friend. When Oklahoma City was struck by a heinous act of terrorism in 1995, he was there for the people of his State, offering comfort and support. The rebuilding, both material and spiritual, would not have been so quickly and thoroughly accomplished without the strength of Don Nickles. He came here as a young man and, despite the passage of 24 years, leaves as a young man. And, I might add, as a pretty fast man. In the New York Marathon last weekend, Oklahoma's senior senator finished in the top half of a field of more than 36,000 runners. If there was a caucus for Senators able to run more than 26 miles in less than 4\1/2\ hours, I believe it would be the smallest in the history of the republic. Thank you, Senator Don Nickles, for your service to this institution and to this country. Whatever path the future sets before you, I know you will be at the front of the pack. ernest hollings

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as I was listening to the Senator from Nevada, it brought back memories of the night when he started reading from a book he wrote. I think it was about, if I remember correctly, Searchlight, NV. I was listening that evening to him, and much to my surprise, I actually got caught up in the story of Searchlight, NV. It was delightfully told, and although the Senator was clearly killing time that evening, I learned a lot about his upbringing and his talent in telling a story. This afternoon, I feel we have once again seen his talent in telling a story. I think it is unfortunate that the Senator from Nevada is personalizing this debate. This debate has nothing to do with the Senator from Maine. The authority over homeland security could have been given to a brandnew committee or some other committee. What is important to me is that we try to address the recommendation made by the 9/11 Commission. I want to read that recommendation because it is very clear, it is very straightforward. It says: Congress should create a single, principal point of oversight and review for homeland security. It goes on to say: Congress does have the obligation to choose one in the House and one in the Senate. . . . It certainly says the congressional leaders are best able to judge which committee should have jurisdiction over this Department and its duties, but it makes very clear that it should be a single committee, and we have not come close to doing this. I admire the Senator from Nevada. He was extremely helpful to me when I was managing the intelligence reform bill over 10 days' time. I looked to him often for advice. I admire his experience and his knowledge, but the recommendation is very clear. It says ``a single, principal point of oversight.'' It says ``choose one.'' It does not say which one. It did not have to be Governmental Affairs. It could have been a new committee. It could have been some other committee. But it says ``choose one,'' and we did not choose one. This plan does not even come close to choosing one. We know that between the House and the Senate, the Department has to report to some 88 committees and subcommittees. Here in the Senate, I think it is around 26 committees and subcommittees. We reduced those by maybe one or two. We still have the Judiciary Committee with significant jurisdiction. We still have the Commerce Committee with jurisdiction over the two largest agencies within the Department of Homeland Security--the Transportation Security Agency and the Coast Guard. You can make a case that the Coast Guard has a lot of nonhomeland security functions, but certainly the homeland security functions of the Coast Guard should have been transferred to the new committee. And certainly the TSA, the largest agency within the Department of Homeland Security with 51,000 employees, should have been transferred. Under the proposal of the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Kentucky, certain responsibilities were transferred from the Judiciary Committee, but those have been reversed in the course of this debate. In fact, the first amendment on the floor had to do with a Customs responsibility that had been transferred, and before either the Senator from Maine or the Senator from Connecticut were even given the courtesy of a phone call about that amendment, it was adopted by the managers of the bill. They immediately transferred away from the new committee some jurisdiction. Then they went on to suggest the adoption of other amendments as well. My point is this: This jurisdiction does not have to come to Governmental Affairs, but what it should go to is a single committee. We should not pretend we are fulfilling the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission--the very specific recommendation of the 9/11 Commission-- that Congress should vest this responsibility in a single committee because we have not come close to that. That is the issue. The issue is not whether Governmental Affairs is the right committee. The issue is not whether Governmental Affairs has other jurisdiction. The issue is, are we going to try to follow the recommendation--the very strong recommendation--of the 9/11 Commission to consolidate oversight of the Department within one congressional committee. Are we going to follow the advice--no, the plea--of Secretary Tom Ridge that we consolidate jurisdiction so he and his top officials do not have to be constantly racing up to the Hill to testify rather than concentrating on the security of our country, because that is what this is about. This is not about turf battles--this should not be about turf battles. This should not be about power plays. This should not be about power grabs. It is about how we can best improve congressional oversight over a department that is critical to the security of this country, and that is the Department of Homeland Security. The Senator from Nevada referred to the Senator from Connecticut. Perhaps he missed some of the debate yesterday. He is extremely attentive to the floor, but at times did step out. The Senator from Connecticut could not have made clearer yesterday his disappointment with this resolution, and he argued against the amendments that even the modest transfers provided in the Reid-McConnell resolution. The staff of the Senator from Connecticut has told me they are certain the Senator from Connecticut would want me, since he is not able to be here today, to make very clear to his colleagues in the Senate that he shares, indeed he mirrors, my concerns. The Senator from Connecticut has worked very hard to make sure the major recommendations of the 9/11 Commission are implemented, and that is not what we are doing here. At best, we are taking a very modest step forward, but let's not pretend that we are in any way implementing the recommendations for a single congressional committee in the Senate to have jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator for the explanation.

Ms. COLLINS. Could we be informed as to the topic?

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont raised a rhetorical question, or at least I think it was a rhetorical question. He said, Should we put the Office of the Attorney General under the jurisdiction of the Governmental Affairs Committee? Of course, the answer to that is obviously no, because the Office of the Attorney General is not part of the Department of Homeland Security. The issue before us is really straightforward and simple. Do we want to follow the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and Secretary Ridge and the rest of the administration and have a single authorizing committee in the House and the Senate with responsibility for the Department of Homeland Security, not responsibility for 38 percent of the Department of Homeland Security, not responsibility for 8 percent of the employees of the Department of Homeland Security? No, there isn't a recommendation to have agencies that are not part of the Department added to the jurisdiction. The idea is to have a single authorizing committee in the House and the Senate to mirror the agencies that are in the Department of Homeland Security, to consolidate jurisdiction between the House and Senate, which is spread over 88 committees and subcommittees; so that the officials of the Department don't have to answer to so many congressional overseers that they are prevented from devoting as much attention as they need to to do their duties. That is what this debate is about.

Ms. COLLINS. I have yielded the floor.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the issue before us is really very straightforward. Do we want to reorganize the Senate to consolidate jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security within one committee or don't we? What we should not do is to pretend we are consolidating jurisdiction in one committee, as recommended by the 9/11 Commission, and as strongly endorsed by the administration and Secretary Ridge. If we are going to consolidate authority, then let's do it. If we are going to try to address the problem of 25 different Senate committees and subcommittees having a claim on the new Department, requiring testimony from officials in the Department, if we want to continue on that route, then let us not pretend we are undergoing significant reform. Moreover, the Secret Service has responsibilities ranging from investigations of Presidential threats to protection at major events that go to the heart of the Department of Homeland Security's mission. The Secret Service is a vital part of the mission of securing the homeland. That is why it was moved into the Department of Homeland Security, and that is why if we are going to mirror the Department, it should be under the jurisdiction of whatever committee is given responsibility for homeland security. There are functions of the Secret Service that clearly fit with the core mission of the Department of Homeland Security. Indeed, at a hearing shortly before passage of the legislation setting up the new Department of Homeland Security, the Director of the Secret Service testified, explaining why it was important to include the Secret Service in the new Department. He stated: Our core philosophy mirrors that of the new Department of Homeland Security. Like our agency, the new department will be prepared to respond to incidents and infiltration. Our common goal is to anticipate and prepare through robust threat assessments and analyses of intelligence information that is made available to us. He also stated: Beyond our protective responsibilities, the Secret Service is a major contributor to other aspects of our homeland security. He concluded his testimony by stating: It is clear the Department of Homeland Security will be built on the pillars of prevention and protection. These are the very words found throughout our strategic plan. They define the mission and the culture of the United States Secret Service. I know that the Secret Service enforces certain criminal laws, and it has a good relationship with the Judiciary Committee. However, the fact is, it is part of the Department of Homeland Security. If we are going to have a committee responsible for the Department of Homeland Security, we should do that. We should not exclude key agencies. Otherwise, we are defeating the whole purpose of creating new jurisdiction and trying to consolidate oversight and responsibility for the Department of Homeland Security. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS. The Senator is correct. That is the effect of the underlying resolution. Amendment No. 4000 To Amendment No. 3981

Ms. COLLINS. The Senator is correct. The underlying resolution as amended this morning now leaves the vast majority of the homeland security jurisdiction in committees other than in the new homeland security committee. I think that is a mistake. I think, if we are going to take that route, then we have not done the consolidation that the administration has called for. Perhaps that is the will of this body. I understand these issues are difficult, that committees think they have a special relationship with these agencies. But let's not pretend we are consolidating agencies to parallel the consolidation that we undertook when we created the Department of Homeland Security.

Ms. COLLINS. The Coast Guard would remain in the Commerce Committee. The point is this: The administration has called for this consolidation. Let us either do it or not do it, but let us not pretend we are doing it by changing the name of a committee but only transferring to its exclusive jurisdiction 38 percent of the budget and 8 percent of the people. If some of the pending amendments are approved, such as one to no longer have the Secret Service transferred, then we are just going to end up with jurisdiction over Tom Ridge's personal staff. That is about what is going to be left.

Ms. COLLINS. The primary role of the Coast Guard today is port security. It has in some ways taken away from its many other important functions in fisheries enforcement and regulation, for example.

Ms. COLLINS. I would be happy to yield.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I want to clarify the issue. It is not just TSA and the homeland security functions of the Coast Guard that are not transferred to the new homeland security committee. It is the immigration functions of the bureaus of Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Citizenship and Immigration Services stay now in the Judiciary Committee. Certain functions of the bureaus of Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement stay in Finance. So I think if we add in all of the exclusions, then we get to the percentages that I quoted. I say to my colleagues, my point is this: Are we going to do this or not? If we are not going to consolidate all of the functions of the Department of Homeland Security under one authorizing committee, as they are under one appropriations subcommittee, appropriately so, then let us not pretend that we are.

Ms. COLLINS. Well, that is a good question. I have had hearings. Other hearings have been held. Twenty-five Senate committees and subcommittees have a claim over DHS. It is why Secretary Ridge called up in desperation and said: Please give us some relief from this. This is intolerable. We are supposed to be running the Department. Instead, we are constantly testifying.

Ms. COLLINS. They would testify all over. They testified before 88-- --

Ms. COLLINS. The fact is that Congress has held 312 hearings over the past 2 years on homeland security. The Department has conducted 2,200 briefings. There are 25 Senate committees and subcommittees with jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security. This is an intolerable situation for the Department. It is why the Department and the President are pleading with us to consolidate all of the Department under one authorizing committee.

Ms. COLLINS. No.

Ms. COLLINS. The Senator is correct.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if we are going to create jurisdiction in one committee for homeland security, let's do it. Let's not pretend that we are doing it. Let's not do it in name only. As a result of the proposal put before the Senate with its exclusions and the amendment adopted this morning, as the Senator from Arizona indicated, the homeland security committee would have exclusive jurisdiction over less than 38 percent of the Department's budget. It would have exclusive jurisdiction over fewer than 8 percent of the Department's employees. That is 13,000 employees out of 175,000 employees. There are more amendments filed that would take still more agencies away from the committee's jurisdiction.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Competition, Foreign Commerce, and Infrastructure be authorized to meet on Wednesday, October 6, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., on Natural Gas.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 6, 2004, at 10 a.m., to hold a closed hearing.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 6, 2004, for a markup on the nominations of Robert N. Davis, to be Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; Mary J. Schoelen, to be a Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; William A. Moorman, to be Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; and Robert Allen Pittman, to be Assistant Secretary (Human Resources and Administration), U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The meeting will take place in S-216 in the Capitol, immediately following the first rollcall vote of the Senate after 11:30 a.m.