Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. If the Senator will yield on that point, I think this points out the confusion and ambiguity I pointed out earlier due to the way the Specter amendment is drafted. I agree that it creates confusion and also that the implications of substituting the national intelligence director for the Secretary of Defense throughout the laws creating these agencies creates a lot of unintended problems. That is one reason I believe this amendment should be defeated.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I urge support for Senator Hutchison's amendment.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his excellent comments. He states the case very well. There are two final points that I would like to make on Senator Specter's amendment, and that is, when we asked Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, to comment on this, he gave us a history of why the Commission specifically rejected this approach, and we talked about many of the reasons. But one other that he mentioned is that one damaging consequence of stripping NSA, NGA, and NRO out of the Department of Defense is that then the Pentagon might well feel obligated to recreate the capabilities within the Department at great expense and creating many more opportunities for bureaucratic conflict. That was a point made by the executive director in expressing his opposition to Senator Specter's amendment and in giving us an insight into why the Commission specifically rejected the route taken in this amendment. I also note that Senator Specter's amendment, while it is intended to create clear lines of authority between the NID and the combat support agencies, in reality could well create much ambiguity and confusion. While the amendment gives the NID supervision, direction, and control over these combat support agencies, it keeps them housed in DOD buildings, on DOD land, and the amendment does not take away from the Secretary of Defense the direction and control he currently has over these agencies. For example, the law that created the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, which is now the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, establishes that Agency under the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense. Yet under the Specter amendment, the NSA, the NGA, and the NRO would fall under the line authority of both Agencies. I think that would create tremendous confusion and ambiguity. Mr. President, I see the time for the vote has arrived.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, Senator Specter is offering the first of what I anticipate will be many amendments to alter the authority of the national intelligence director. He is arguing that the Collins- Lieberman bill does not go far enough. Later on in this debate you will hear from those who believe our bill empowers the NID too far, with too much authority in the NID. Our approach gives the national intelligence director full budget authority, including the authority to execute, reprogram, and transfer funds over the entire budgets of the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office, which are all now located within the Department of Defense. Our bill also gives the NID enhanced tasking authority, the power to transfer personnel and authority over the selections of the heads of these agencies with concurrence from the Secretary of Defense. What it does not do is sever the link between these agencies and the Secretary of Defense, nor does it give the NID exclusive control over these agencies. And that would be the impact of Senator Specter's amendment. He would sever the link between these agencies and the Secretary of Defense, and he would give the NID exclusive control over these agencies. I think that would be a mistake. I believe our legislation strikes the right balance in the relationship that it sets forth between the NID and these agencies. I note that our approach is consistent with the recommendations of the 9/ 11 Commission. It is consistent with the recommendations of the administration. The 9/11 Commission, indeed, opposes adoption of Senator Specter's amendment. The Commission believes it would be a mistake to sever that link between these agencies and the Secretary of Defense. In deciding to keep these agencies--the NSA, the NGA, and the NRO-- within the Department of Defense, we were cognizant of the fact that the NSA and the NGA are designated as combat support agencies. We did not want to in any way weaken or break the bonds between these agencies and the military forces that serve in that capacity. Indeed, many current and former defense officials warned that taking such a step would be counterproductive and would risk breaking something that is working well for the military today. For example, at our hearings, Secretary Powell said: We should not break the link between these intelligence organizations and the organizations that they are supporting, especially within the military context and the direct kind of support that the NRO and similar organizations give to the warfighter. I would note that by severing that link, the Specter amendment would create some real anomalies. For example, in his proposal, he requires that every 2 years, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would submit to the national intelligence director a report on the combat readiness of these organizations. Why would a report on combat readiness go to the national intelligence director rather than to the Secretary of Defense? There are some other unanticipated consequences of the Specter amendment that illustrate how wholesale changes to the status of NGA, NRO, and the NSA might have completely unintended consequences. For example, title X, section 442(b) now provides that the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency shall improve means of navigating vessels of the Navy and the merchant marine by providing, under the authority of the Secretary of Defense, accurate and inexpensive nautical charts, sailing directions, books on navigation, and manuals of instructions for the use of all vessels in the United States and of navigators generally. The Specter amendment, in changing the Secretary of Defense to the national intelligence director, would make the national intelligence director responsible for a navigation mapping responsibility that has nothing to do with intelligence. That is just an example of some of the unintended consequences. Again, the approach taken by Senator Specter--and I know he has given this matter a great deal of thought--does not have the support of the 9/11 Commission. It does not have the support of the administration. It would sever the link between these combat support agencies and the Secretary of Defense. I will note that these three agencies within the Pentagon do serve customers other than the Secretary of Defense. There are other consumers, such as the CIA, for the intelligence information they produce. That is why our legislation does give the NID significant authority over these agencies, including budget authority, the ability to transfer personnel, and the ability, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense, to name the heads of these agencies. That is the right balance. But to break that link between these agencies and the Secretary of Defense simply, in my judgment, does not make sense. I urge opposition to the amendment.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, Senator Voinovich, along with Senator Levin, was very instrumental in helping to draft the compromise represented in this amendment. I talked earlier about the efforts of the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Connecticut, but I also wanted to acknowledge that Senator Voinovich and Senator Levin worked very hard to help us strike the right balance in allocating funding so that large States with high-threat areas would receive additional funding. Yet we wanted to make sure that we recognize that every State, regardless of size or population, has certain vulnerabilities. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following cosponsors be added to Collins-Carper-Lieberman-Coleman amendment No. 3705: Senators Voinovich, Leahy, Akaka, Rockefeller, Nelson of Nebraska, and Hagel.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, we would be happy, in light of the devastation to his State, to give the Senator from Florida 10 minutes, if that would be helpful.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I, too, thank our leaders for their cooperation in moving this bill forward. The process they have outlined is a fair one. It will help us know how many amendments there are, and we will work with the sponsors of those amendments to ensure adequate debate. If the Senator from Florida could tell me how much time he anticipates needing.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, before the Senator from Mississippi has to leave the floor, I want to thank him for his advice and his support as we bring this very important legislation before the Senate for consideration. I very much value the advice and support of the Senator, and I appreciate all he is doing to help move this legislation forward. He has been a very early voice in identifying the flaws in our current intelligence system and has been stalwart in his support for significant reform. I thank the Senator from Mississippi. I also commend the Senator from Texas for her continued effort to examine the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and to pursue legislative solutions, particularly in the area of improving the security of cargo and general aviation security in general. Senator Hutchison has been a longtime leader in this area. Her amendment encompasses a significant portion of S. 165 that the Senate passed by unanimous consent in May. I commend her for her foresight in recognizing areas of concern that have been singled out by the 9/11 Commission. In the Commission's report, for example, the Commission noted that: Major vulnerabilities still exist in cargo and general aviation security. The Commission went on to say that: The TSA and Congress must give priority attention to improving the ability of screening checkpoints to detect explosives. The Commission says: More attention and resources should be directed to reducing or mitigating the threat posed by explosives in vessels' cargo holds. These are all areas of weakness identified by the Commission that the Senator from Texas would address in her amendment. It will assist in implementing several of the Commission's recommendations and as a whole will help to make our Nation's air passengers, air carriers, and air cargo more secure. I would note that the Department of Homeland Security has no objections to the Senator's amendment. When the roll call does occur, I will be urging our colleagues to support her efforts. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Stevens no longer needs to use his time at this time. I believe he will be speaking later. So I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the order that reserved time for Senator Stevens and instead have Senator Hutchison recognized to offer an amendment.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

Ms. COLLINS. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I congratulate the senior Senator from Maine for her comments and her work on this issue. As a member of the Intelligence Committee she has understood very early the need for significant intelligence reform. The provisions included in the Collins-Lieberman bill that created an inspector general for the new national intelligence authority are the direct result of the legislation sponsored by the senior Senator from Maine. I thank the Senator for her expertise and her leadership. This is an area, as she indicated, on which she has been working for many years. We very much value her contributions to the debate. I know of no other requests to speak tonight.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Governmental Affairs Committee detailees be granted floor privileges during the duration of this bill: Deborah Barger, Donald Bumgardner, Keith Herrington, Keith Janssen, William Murray, Edward Priestap, and Cornelius Southall.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of morning business time on both sides be yielded back.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I will not debate this amendment tonight. I wanted to alert our colleagues that this amendment represents the work of the Governmental Affairs Committee to reform and improve and strengthen the formula for the allocation of Homeland Security grant moneys. Our committee has held several hearings over the last 2 years on this issue. This legislation reflects the result of those hearings. It also parallels the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, that the formula needs to be revised so that it is more of a threat- based formula. We worked very hard to come up with a compromise on the committee. We maintained the minimum that each State would get to ensure that every State can respond to its preparedness needs. But we also rewrote the formula in recognition of the fact that some areas of our country, some States, are indeed high-threat areas. This legislation represents a careful balance that reflects the membership of our committee, which includes both large-State Senators, such as Senator Levin of Michigan, and small-State Senators, such as Senator Carper of Delaware. Senator Levin, in particular, I recognize for his very hard work on revising the formula. As I said--and I see members of the leadership on the floor--we will not debate this at length tonight. I did want to send the amendment to the desk.

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Carper, and Senator Lieberman.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the senior Senator from Maine, Senator Snowe, is on her way to the floor to speak to the amendment temporarily laid aside. Before the Senator from Florida leaves the floor, I want to thank him for all the work he has done in this area. The Senator recently spent about an hour with me, sharing some of his experiences as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He has a great deal of knowledge and expertise, and I very much appreciated his taking the time to give me the benefit of his thoughts on intelligence reform. I am also the proud owner of his book, which is on my bedside table right now and is very appropriate reading as we do this debate. I thank him for his contributions. Like Senator Lieberman, I look forward to working with him, Senator Wyden, Senator Snowe, Senator Lott, on the amendment they have proposed.

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I appreciate the commitment of the Senator from Oregon to work with us on this issue. I certainly understand his frustration at a tendency to overclassify information that it is not warranted to be classified, that is not necessary to protect intelligence sources and methods. I note a couple of points. One is that the Collins-Lieberman bill vests in the national intelligence director the authority to establish requirements and procedures for the classification of intelligence information. Another portion of our bill requires the national intelligence director to establish intelligence-reporting guidelines that maximize the dissemination of information, while protecting intelligence sources and methods. In addition, the administration has expressed grave reservations about the amendment as it is now drafted. What I would like to suggest and what the Senator from Oregon has graciously offered to do is have our staff on both sides of the aisle sit down with the Senator, see if we can address some of the administration's concerns, see if we can look at language that is already in the bill, and understand how that interacts with the Senator's proposal. I thank him for his commitment to this area. He has identified a very real problem. I hope, perhaps, we can come up with an approach that will address his concerns.