Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair.

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

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

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

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

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

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

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

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

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

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

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

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

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

Ms. COLLINS. I would be happy to yield.

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

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 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.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

Ms. COLLINS. 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.