Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I believe we have worked out an agreement on Senator Stevens' amendment No. 3826, as modified, that is acceptable to both sides. I am pleased we have been able to reach a compromise. This amendment would clarify the NCTC Director's role in advising the President and the national intelligence director. It uses language that we worked out carefully during the committee markup with Senator Levin and others. Specifically, the NCTC Director would advise the President and the NID on interagency counterterrorism planning and activities which is consistent with the NCTC Director's responsibility to conduct interagency counterterrorism planning. I urge adoption of the amendment, as modified.

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would also point out that if we do not disclose the top line, the result is the intelligence budget is still funded through the Department of Defense. So if we are trying to give the national intelligence director real budget authority, we have to disclose that top line. We are not disclosing the top line of the CIA, the DIA, the NSA; it is only the aggregate figure for the entire national intelligence budget. Otherwise we are not reforming the process. The funding will have to go through the Department of Defense.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to inform our colleagues that, after working very closely with Senator Stevens, Senator Lieberman and I have agreed to a modification of his amendment that is acceptable to us. The bill originally called for an effective date after enactment of 180 days. The amendment of Senator Stevens would retain that date but give the President the ability to extend for another 6 months for certain provisions of the bill. That is an acceptable compromise. I thank the Senator from Alaska for working with the Senator from Connecticut and myself to reach this agreement. I want my colleagues to take note that we have accommodated the Senator's concern in this regard.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, testimony from former DCIs as well as other experts confirmed the need for stronger authority to transfer and reprogram funds and told us this is key to reform of the intelligence community. The Acting Director of the CIA said it best. He talked about how cumbersome the current system is. He told us you first have to acquire the approval of the agency head, then you have to go to the department secretary, then you have to go to OMB, and then you have to go to Congress. We are keeping the OMB and congressional steps. I want to make that clear. But that process, he told us, typically takes 5 months, and, as he said--and I quote John McLaughlin: So you can see that's not very agile to meet the needs of today. My view is that the national intelligence director ought to have the authority to move those funds. I would also note that other provisions in the bill are opposed by the White House, and the amendment is opposed by the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute on our side, then, as well.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia would considerably limit the authority of the national intelligence director to move money and people. It would undermine a key reform that is included in this bill, a reform that the 9/11 Commission says is absolutely necessary to empower the NID. Otherwise we are just creating another layer of bureaucracy. We need to make sure that the NID has the authority to marshal the resources, the people, and the funding to counter the biggest threats we face. The Byrd amendment would actually give the new national intelligence director less authority than the DCI has under current law to move around money and personnel to address urgent needs. Under the Byrd amendment, aggregate transfers from a department or an agency would be limited by a dollar and a percentage amount. There is no such limitation in current law. This amendment represents a step backward from current law. It would severely undermine the reforms. I am going to move that it be tabled. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee for working with Senator Lieberman and me on the appointment authority. This is a very important issue. We have struck the right balance in the modification. I urge acceptance of the modification which embodies the compromise we worked on over the weekend.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I think that would be a good idea. I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to Senator Warner's amendment first while we are waiting for Senator Byrd.

Ms. COLLINS. OK. Madam President, we would now proceed to 2 minutes of debate equally divided on Senator Byrd's amendment.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am wondering if perhaps that could be done in the 2 minutes on the Stevens amendment, since we have an awful lot of amendments to get through. I am very hesitant to cut off the Senator from Montana, but would that be acceptable?

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I want to explain to our colleagues what is going to happen before we proceed. There will be a motion to table the Byrd amendment. There will be 2 minutes equally divided and then a motion to table the Byrd amendment. We have been able to work out an agreement on Senator Warner's amendment. That will be the second matter we deal with. He will send a modification to the desk, and it is my hope to be able to adopt that amendment by a voice vote and vitiate the rollcall request. Then there will be consideration of an amendment from Senator Stevens having to do with the effective date. Again, we have worked out a compromise on that, working very hard throughout the weekend. I expect Senator Stevens will propose a modification to his amendment, and that will allow us to clear that amendment by a voice vote. We then will proceed to the Stevens amendment dealing with classification, which has been debated extensively. That will require a rollcall vote, and I will be moving to table it. We then will move to another Stevens amendment where, again, I am pleased to report there is another compromise. It has to do with the interagency counterterrorism plans. Again, an amendment will be sent to the desk incorporating the compromise. I believe Senator Stevens will be offering that. I anticipate being able to accept that on a voice vote. So I want my colleagues to know that we have made considerable progress in accommodating concerns expressed by the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Alaska. As a result, I see the need for two rollcall votes out of the five that were ordered. I hope that is how it will unfold.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his very eloquent presentation. As the Senator indicated, the intelligence budget's aggregate number has been made public twice by the DCI. So this is not unprecedented. But if the amendment offered by the Senator from Alaska were adopted, let there be no mistake of what the effect would be. The effect would be that the funding for the National Intelligence Program would still be funded through Department of Defense. The whole purpose of this bill is to create a national intelligence director with significant authority, and the first and perhaps most significant of those authorities is the control of the budget. The only way you can give the NID true control over the budget is if you have a separate account that the NID controls. And we need to do that by declassifying the top level number. We did not go as far as the 9/11 Commission recommended. The 9/11 Commission recommended declassifying the top lines of all the agencies' budgets within the National Intelligence Program. We did not adopt that approach. Instead, we are only declassifying the aggregate number for the entire national intelligence budget, a number I note is often estimated and reported in the newspapers today. But the point I want to make to supplement the remarks of the Senator from West Virginia is if we do not do this, if we adopt the amendment offered by the Senator from Alaska, we will undermine a key reform in the bill because the intelligence budget is so big that if it is not going to be declassified, it has to go through the Department of Defense. There is no other agency or department that is big enough to conceal the total amount of the budget. This is going to be an important vote which is coming up this afternoon.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, for talking about this amendment at this point. I know he has not officially offered it yet. We are talking to him about it. I think this amendment responds to many of the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission to strengthen aviation security. I very much appreciate the provisions of this amendment. We are trying to work out the authorization level that is included in the bill, but my overall reaction to his proposal is very favorable. I know it has been reported by the Commerce Committee and cleared by the chairman and the ranking member of that committee. As usual, it reflects the Senator's thoughtful consideration of homeland security issues. I very much have appreciated his advice throughout this debate, and I am hopeful that shortly we will be able to have him officially offer his amendment, perhaps with a modification, and we would be able to accept it.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his comments. As I indicated, he has been a key member in drafting this bill. I very much appreciate his many contributions and support.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am very pleased to see the Senator from Minnesota is on the floor. Senator Coleman has been one of the most diligent members of the Governmental Affairs Committee on this issue. He came to virtually every hearing we had throughout the August recess, starting on the very first hearing on July 30. He is a cosponsor of the bill. He helped to write many of its provisions. I am very grateful for his leadership and support, and I look forward to hearing his comments.

Ms. COLLINS. Let me indicate to the Senator from Missouri that I very much appreciate his concern in this area. There is no greater advocate for our troops than he. I join with him in an assurance that we are going to watch this very carefully. The language of the bill is very tightly and carefully drafted. The commitment to our troops is there. There is nothing in this bill that would in any way hinder military operations, readiness, or the flow of real-time, actionable intelligence to our troops. That is essential. The Senator has my commitment to continue to monitor this very closely.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to give the assurances the Senator from Missouri is seeking. He and I, as he mentioned, along with my friend from Connecticut, serve on the Armed Services Committee and have a deep commitment to making sure that our men and women in the military receive the real-time, actionable intelligence they need to be effective. Nothing in this bill would in any way hinder the flow of intelligence from NSA to the combatant commanders to the troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan--nothing. In fact, as the Senator from Missouri knows, we opposed an amendment last week which would have undermined the relationship between those defense agencies and the Secretary of Defense by essentially moving them out of the Pentagon--not physically but from an authority standpoint--and having them only report to the national intelligence director. We recognized that we need a dual reporting, that these agencies are providing critical intelligence to our troops and to Pentagon officials as well as to the rest of the intelligence community. I agree with the Senator that vigilant oversight is going to be necessary to make sure this is implemented in the manner we intend. But I must say, given the clear language of the bill, given the fact that tactical intelligence assets are completely exempted from the NID's control, and given the fact that any NID is going to be committed to providing excellent intelligence to our troops, I can't imagine the bill having the negative impact that he might feel.

Ms. COLLINS. I appreciate the leadership of the distinguished Senator from Missouri to allow greater flexibility for State and local officials in spending homeland security grant funds. I agree that greater flexibility is needed to use homeland security funds to meet special security needs. I am pleased to include in my amendment language Senator Talent and I have crafted over the past 18-months which last week he made the subject of a sense of the senate resolution granting authority to the Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness to approve the reallocation of funds available to State homeland security officials in unspent homeland security funds. I am confident that this language would allow State and local officials to reallocate homeland security grant funds to provide greater safety for special security events like the Maccabi Games. Senator Talent has been tireless in his efforts to pass his measure and achieve this flexibility to help local first responders and I am proud that we could include it in this amendment. I look forward to continuing to work with the Senator from Missouri on this important issue.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, reclaiming my right to the floor, let us look at what happens under the current system when funds are reprogrammed. I would like to quote from the acting CIA Director John McLaughlin testimony that he gave before the Senate Armed Services Committee which parallels conversations that Senator Lieberman and I had with him privately. It goes directly to this point of the need for a more agile system. Yes, the DCI has some reprogramming authority now. But let us look at the way it works. Listen to what John McLaughlin says: Typically you require the approval of the agency that is surrendering the funds. Then you require the approval of the department head who overseas the agency. Usually that is the Secretary of Defense. Then you require the approval of OMB. Then you require the approval of six congressional committees. Typically that takes 5 months. I want to repeat that. That reprogramming takes 5 months, on average. John McLaughlin goes on to say: So you can see that is not very agile to meet the needs of today. My view is that the national intelligence director ought to have the authority to move those funds. We are facing an agile enemy, and what are we putting up against him? A system where it takes 5 months to move funds from one category to another. I wish to address the issue of the accounts under the bill, which both Senator Byrd and Senator Dorgan have addressed. These are simply accounts that allow the NID to receive the appropriations. That is all they are. The accounts set up under our bill do not give the NID any additional authority. These are just regular Treasury accounts. Why are they needed? They are needed because the money now is funneled through the Department of Defense. If you are going to allow the NID to receive the appropriations from Congress from a mechanics standpoint, you have to have a mechanism whereby the Treasury Department sets up the accounts for him. That is all this is. In fact, I refer to page 24, line 12, of our legislation. These accounts are set up explicitly ``for the purpose of carrying out the responsibilities and authorities of the director under this act.'' The accounts themselves do not allow or authorize the NID to transfer funds. There is transfer authority. It is on page 27 of the bill. These authorities include a number of important safeguards. First of all, transfers will still require congressional approval just as they do now. We are not changing the balance of power between this new position and the Congress. The transfers are subject to the applicable ceilings established in law to the appropriation ceilings. The transfers cannot be made unilaterally by the NID. They require the approval of the Director of Management and Budget. Finally, the NID must consult with the affected agency heads, but no longer will he have to get the approval of the agency head and then the department head and then Office of Management and Budget and then Congress--that whole intricate system. We would allow consultation. Then the NID can move the money with the approval of OMB and subject to the same congressional review we have now. This is not a radical new concept. It is an essential authority. We cannot afford to have a process that takes 5 months for money to be moved from one account to another.

Ms. COLLINS. If I could complete my sentence, I would be happy to yield briefly for a question. The Senator from Missouri has been waiting for some time to speak on the amendment that was just cleared on homeland security grants. I will yield briefly for a question.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I note that the Senator from North Dakota gave a very troubling and compelling example of the fact that the FBI is so far behind in translating critical messages and documents. I am troubled by that, also. Where we may differ is, I believe, that the authority given to the national intelligence director by the bill will allow us to address that problem. Now we will have one person in Government who is accountable and responsible and who will be able to--unless the Byrd amendment is agreed to--transfer the people and the funds necessary to tackle that backlog. That can't happen because of a very cumbersome process. I see our legislation and the authority it gives the new NID to be critical in allowing us to address just those kinds of problems. We know there is a shortage of linguists throughout the Federal Government, but we also know there are thousands of linguists. Some of them are in the FBI, some of them are in the CIA, and some are in various other agencies. If we had a national intelligence director who was able to marshal those resources, then we could get rid of those backlogs. I think that would be very helpful. I have other comments I want to make in response to the Senator's comments on the Byrd amendment.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I note the Senator from North Dakota is on his feet. I wonder if the Senator could inform us whether he is seeking recognition to talk about the bill or offer an amendment or morning business.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the underlying amendment, the Collins-Carper-Lieberman-Coleman amendment No. 3705.