Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I yield to my friend from Ohio as much time as he might need.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SHELBY. I will try to be brief. Mr. President, as former Director Woolsey of the CIA once said, ``It is impossible to conduct a meaningful debate on the effects of such amendments without explaining the component parts of the intelligence budget.'' Think about that a minute. How much is spent for the CIA? How much is spent for signals intelligence? How much are we spending on satellites, and so on? It is that discussion which creates the likelihood of disclosure of sensitive intelligence information that would be of benefit to our adversaries. Mr. President, there are many opportunities to debate and discuss the details of the intelligence budget among the Intelligence, Armed Services, and Appropriations Committees. We all do this. This is not a topic that goes unexamined by the people's representatives in the Senate or the House. Mr. President, the Senate Intelligence Committee was established to ensure vigorous oversight of our intelligence activities. I believe myself that the committee faithfully represents the American people. Our goal is to maintain a robust intelligence capability while ensuring that our intelligence activities are conducted in accordance with American values and constitutional principles. The members of the committee take their responsibilities very seriously, and I pledge to the American people that we will continue to represent the best interests of this Nation. Mr. President, our intelligence capabilities are a critical national asset and, as chairman of the committee, I will not support an effort to disclose classified information when there is no compelling argument to do so. Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the Torricelli amendment. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next two votes be reduced to 10 minutes time limit.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I oppose the public disclosure of the overall level of intelligence funding as proposed by the Torricelli amendment. It does not take an act of Congress to declassify the top line of intelligence spending. The President of the United States has always had the authority to disclose this figure, and has always chosen to keep it classified. Determining the classification is the responsibility and, I believe, the duty of the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief. Presidents Truman through Clinton have determined that this figure is to remain classified and we should not overrule that judgment. I yield the remainder of my time. I ask my colleagues to vote no on the Torricelli amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I yield back the minute that was allotted to us.

Mr. SHELBY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 87, S. 858, the intelligence authorization bill.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privileges of the floor be granted to the following members of our staff. We have a list of them: Alfred Cumming, Melvin Dubee, Peter Flory, Lorenzo Goco, Joan Grimson, Andy Johnson, Taylor Lawrence, Ken Myers, Suzanne Spaulding, Christopher Straub, Christopher Williams, Peter Dorn, Bill Duhnke, Emil Francona, Art Grant, Patricia Hanback, Ken Johnson, Don Mitchell, Randy Schieber, Don Stone, Linda Taylor, and James Wolfe.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the intelligence authorization bill is before the Senate at this time. This bill was unanimously voted out of the Intelligence Committee on June 4. It was then referred to the Senate Armed Services Committee and was favorably reported without amendment yesterday. This bill will authorize appropriations for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the U.S. Government. I am pleased to report to the Senate today that I have worked very closely with Senator Kerrey, the vice chairman of the committee, in drafting this bill. We have crafted, Mr. President, what we believe is a bipartisan bill that received the full support of all Republican and all Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee. I am proud that the actions we have taken with this legislation are comprehensive and that we have taken some bold steps to implement four priorities to posture the intelligence community for the future. Mr. President, it is extremely fortuitous that we are bringing the intelligence authorization bill to the floor this week when we have seen a great intelligence success recently. It is not often that the dedicated men and women of our intelligence agencies enjoy public recognition for their work. They understand that. But yesterday, all Americans were gratified to learn of the successful apprehension of Mir Aimal Kansi and his transport to the United States to stand trial for the brutal murder of two CIA employees and the wounding of three others outside the CIA headquarters several years back. I am extremely proud of our intelligence community in their work here. The Kansi arrest was the result of over 4 years--4 years--of painstaking and dedicated investigative and intelligence work by the CIA, the FBI, and others. Together with my colleagues on the Intelligence Committee, I was briefed on the details of this successful mission yesterday. While I cannot comment on the operation itself, I can share with my colleagues, as Senator Kerrey would, and the American people, that it was conducted with great professionalism and personal courage. The success of this operation should serve as a warning to others, those who in the past have attacked Americans and those who might be contemplating such actions, that America will take action to bring the alleged perpetrators to justice wherever they are and whatever the cost. To the families of those who died and to those who were wounded, we know that this arrest cannot return your loved ones or heal your wounds. We hope, however, that you derive consolation from seeing the accused killer brought to this country for trial. The legislation before us today is made up of words and numbers on paper. As yesterday's events remind us, the work of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals takes place in the real world, in flesh and blood. While the cold war is, indeed, over, there are still many forces in the world today that threaten our national security and our citizens and require the constant vigilance of our intelligence community. That is why we have authorized a significant level of funding for the continued operation of the intelligence community's activities. I believe it would be inappropriate, Mr. President, to reveal this exact level of funding, not because we do not want the American people to know how much is invested in intelligence activities for their protection, but, rather, we want to protect the level of our investments from foreign intelligence services and leaders of rogue states who would analyze trends in these investments to help guide their decisions about when to strike with terrorism or aggression against their neighbors, perhaps our own citizens. I now would like to take a few minutes to summarize the major priorities and the actions we have taken with this legislation. We have had to face some tough choices, as all of us have in the Senate, in the allocation of resources to meet the critical priorities that have been set for the intelligence community. In setting the authorization level for intelligence, we have looked across the combined request for intelligence that is broken up into three major categories, and they are the National Foreign Intelligence Program of the Director of Central Intelligence, the Joint Military Intelligence Program of the Secretary of Defense, and the Tactical Intelligence and Related Activities Program of the military services. The Intelligence Authorization Act includes authorization for each of these categories. With this legislation, Mr. President, we continue to lay the groundwork for the intelligence community of the 21st century, one that is retooled and I believe that is right-sized. In putting together this authorization, the committee identified nine key areas that will contribute to this effort. We drafted an authorization bill that will better focus, we believe, the intelligence community's resources on these areas. I call the first five areas the five C's: counterterrorism, counterproliferation, counternarcotics, counterintelligence, and covert action. In each of these areas our bill includes additional resources to aggressively tackle these difficult missions in the world. We also examined four other areas with a view toward long-term investments that would place our intelligence agencies on a stronger footing as we enter the 21st century. These included: A stronger commitment to advanced research and development to maintain our technological edge; improvement in the tools and skills of our clandestine service personnel; new approaches to infiltrating and assessing hard-target countries; and enhancements to our analytical and information warfare capabilities. We have put forward a balanced recommendation for the authorization of a Joint Military Intelligence Program that, among other things, includes sensor and engine upgrades for our airborne intelligence fleet of RC-135's; it continues the modernization of our manned reconnaissance capabilities; and pushes forward with the new technology of unmanned aerial vehicles. We have also taken some bold legislative initiatives in this bill. One area on which the Intelligence Committee focused was the need to ensure that classification of information is used effectively to protect sensitive sources and methods or other vital national security interests but does not prevent the flow of information to Congress or, where appropriate, to the American people. The committee has concluded that a higher priority is needed for the review and for the declassification of intelligence so that families concerned about the murder of a loved one overseas receive vital information consistent with national security concerns. The Committee on Intelligence recently heard from the families of several marines who were murdered in a terrorist attack in Zona Rosa, El Salvador, in 1985. A common refrain in their testimony before the committee was concern about how little information they received from their Government regarding the attack and its perpetrators. It was from network television, for example, that at least one family first learned of the attack and death of their brother or son. It was also from television broadcasts that several families learned years later that the likely mastermind of the attack had been brought into this country through the U.S. official channels. The committee has pressed the executive branch to provide these families with as much information as possible, but 12 years is a long time to wait. The committee believes, however, that it is the national interests of the United States to provide information regarding the murder or kidnapping of Americans abroad to their families consistent with intelligence operations. Moreover, given the difficulty inherent in identifying all relevant information that might be held by different elements of the Government and the likely resistance to providing information that is currently classified, the committee believes this important responsibility must ultimately be vested in a Cabinet-level official. Therefore, the committee has adopted a provision in this bill requiring the Secretary of State to ensure that all appropriate actions are taken within the Government to promptly identify relevant information pertaining to incidents of violence against Americans overseas. Mr. President, the Secretary is then required to make the information available to families to the maximum extent possible without seriously jeopardizing sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other national security interests. This provision, along with others contained in this bill, will enhance the intelligence community's working relationship with the American public that it serves. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998. Mr. President, I also want to remind my colleagues that a lot, if not most, of this bill is classified. But we have some security officers from the Intelligence Committee that are available here today, off the floor, to go into any aspect of the legislation that they think is pertinent.

Mr. SHELBY. Also, for the information of all Senators, this now means that all Members can expect up to three consecutive rollcall votes beginning around 2:45 this afternoon. Mr. President, the committee has received the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate for S. 858. CBO found that the public bill would not affect direct spending or receipts in 1998; thus, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply to it. In addition, the Unfunded Mandates Reform act [UMRA] excludes from application of the act legislative provisions that are necessary for the national security. CBO determined that all of the provisions of this bill either fit within that exclusion or do not contain intergovernmental mandates as defined by UMRA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate for Senate bill 858, the intelligence authorization bill, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I will be brief on the Wellstone amendment. I think just about everybody in the Senate would agree that whatever tax bill we enact this year should meet a standard of fairness in the distributional impact on all Americans, on upper, middle and lower taxpayers, as he is talking about. I have no quarrel with the amendment, the Wellstone amendment. I do not believe it belongs on the Senate authorization bill dealing with intelligence activities, but I have no opposition to the content of it or the substance of it.

Mr. SHELBY. They will be notified.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Torricelli amendment. I oppose the public disclosure of the overall level of intelligence funding as proposed by the amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey. Mr. President, it does not, I repeat, it does not take an act of Congress to declassify the top line of the intelligence budget as this amendment would do if adopted. The President of the United States has always had and has today the authority to disclose this figure and has always chosen to keep it classified. Determining classification is the responsibility and is the duty of the Chief Executive of the United States, the President, who is also, as we know, the Commander in Chief. Presidents Truman through Clinton have determined this figure is to remain classified, and I believe we should not overrule that judgment. The purpose of maintaining a premier intelligence capability is to save lives and to prevent and, if we get in them, win wars. The foundation of an effective intelligence capability, as we all know, is secrecy. Secrecy protects not only the information that we collect, but also the brave people that put themselves at risk to do the collection of it. We are an open and a free society that generally abhors secret dealings by our Government. But in the case of intelligence collection and analysis, secrecy, I believe, is absolutely necessary. Some of my colleagues argue that the American people have a right to know how much of their money is being spent to defend their Nation's security through intelligence-gathering operations. I assert today that, through its elected officials, the public interests are being effectively served. As U.S. Senators, all of us we have been elected to represent the interests of our constituents and to act on their behalf. Therefore, the American people do know, in a sense, how much we spend on national security because their elected representatives know. As on many other issues, Mr. President, our constituents have a voice, and it speaks through the Senators and Representatives and the President of the United States. Some of my colleagues will argue that disclosing the total budget amount will instill public confidence and enable the American people to know what portion of the Federal budget is dedicated to intelligence activities. It appears there is general agreement that the details of the intelligence budget should remain classified, however. I believe that the total budget figure is of no use to anyone but to those who wish to do us harm. For example, what do the numbers tell our adversaries or potential adversaries in the world? In any given year, perhaps, not a great deal. But while watching the changes in the budget over time, and using information gathered by their own intelligence activities, sophisticated analysts can indeed learn a great deal. Trend analysis, Mr. President, you are familiar with, is a technique that our own analysts use to make predictions and to reach conclusions. There are hostile foreign intelligence agencies all over the world that are focused solely on gathering every bit of information that they can about our own intelligence-gathering operations and our capabilities. Their ultimate goal is to exploit weaknesses and to deny access and to deceive our own intelligence collectors. Denial and deception is already a serious concern for the intelligence community, and providing our enemies or potential enemies with any insight as to what we spend on intelligence will only make it worse, not better. Others will argue that the total budget figure is already in the public domain, and we should just acknowledge it. Mr. President, we never, never confirm or deny classified information that may have been published somewhere or spoken by someone. Classified information, as you well know, remains classified even if it wrongly makes it into the public domain. We will also, Mr. President, hear from those who say disclosure is required by the statement and account clause of the Constitution, article 1, section 9, clause 7. Mr. President, I assert today that the current practice is fully consistent with the Constitution, and it carries forward a tradition of secret expenditures dating back more than 200 years. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court of the United States observed in the U.S. versus Richardson case, ``Historical analysis of clause 7 suggests that it was intended to permit secrecy in operations.'' Further, Mr. President, the figure is available to all Members of Congress, the U.S. Senate and, the U.S. House to review. As I reviewed the debate on this topic, I found a statement by my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, in 1993, with which I totally agree, and which is appropriate today. Senator Chafee, the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, said, disclosing the top line budget figure would only ``frustrate a curious public and politicize the intelligence budget.'' He pointed out further, ``What many proponents of disclosure want to do is to put a bull's-eye on the intelligence budget and hold it up as a target for public ridicule, recognizing full well that we cannot engage in a meaningful public debate regarding intelligence programs.'' I assure you, Mr. President, once the overall number has been released, there would be efforts to amend the overall funding for intelligence in open session. I do not believe it would be good for the Senate, the House, or the American people. Otherwise, I believe President Clinton and Presidents before him would have already declassified the number which they have the right to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 19, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. on pending committee business.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 19 for purposes of conducting a Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be permitted to meet Thursday, June 19, 1997, beginning at 10 a.m. in room SH-216, to conduct a markup on budget reconciliation.

Mr. SHELBY

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

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to express support for the Drug-Free Communities Act and I would like to commend its sponsors, Senators Grassley, Daschle, DeWine, and D'Amato for their efforts in developing this important legislation. Unfortunately, a recent poll conducted by the Partnership for a Drug- Free America indicated that younger and younger children are using drugs. This poll is only the latest evidence of a very disturbing trend of increasing drug use by young people. It is important that we act to stop drug use and to prevent the devastation that drug use will have on America's young people. The Drug-Free Communities Act is an important step in this effort. This legislation provides local community groups, who have proven track records addressing teen drug use, with the funding they need to really combat drug usage. The Drug-Usage Communities Act creates an advisory commission, consisting of local community leaders, who will oversee the program and make sure that funds are directed to those groups that are successful in fighting drug use by America's children. The act provides funding only to those groups that can match the Federal dollars with non-Federal funds, ensuring that viable community groups will participate in the program and sustain anti-drug efforts as the fight continues. Lastly, the Drug-Free Communities Act requires no new funding. Funds will come from the $16 billion Federal drug control budget. This legislation is extremely important to the war on drugs. With the latest news that our efforts are flagging, that children are giving in to the temptation of drugs, we must fight back. The drug dealers are not waiting to approach our children, they never hesitate to make a sale. We cannot delay in fighting for them. We must reinvigorate the effort to protect our children. We must pass the Drug-Free Communities Act.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to join with many of my colleagues in saluting a great friend, patriot, and statesman--the senior Senator from South Carolina, Strom Thurmond. Listening to the debate recently, I realized that many were speaking of their personal experiences while serving with Senator Thurmond. I, however, would like to share with my colleagues the greatest story I know about Senator Thurmond--the true story of his life. To me it illustrates one key thing: that the hallmark of Strom Thurmond's life has been his dedication to serving others. Senator Thurmond was born in 1902 and raised in Edgefield, SC. Following his graduation in 1923 from Clemson University, young Strom Thurmond began his career, first as a teacher and coach, then, at the age of 21, as an officer in the U.S. Army Reserve. Eventually, Senator Thurmond went on to become the county superintendent of education, city attorney, county attorney, State Senator and circuit judge of South Carolina. From 1942 to 1946, Senator Thurmond, along with millions of other brave young men, served in World War II. For his service in the American, European, and Pacific theaters, Senator Thurmond earned 5 battle stars and 18 decorations and medals, including the Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster, the Purple Heart, and the Bronze Star for valor. Upon his return to South Carolina, Strom Thurmond was elected to serve as Governor of South Carolina. During his tenure as Governor, Senator Thurmond was a candidate for President of the United States. Five years later, in 1954, Strom Thurmond was elected as a write-in candidate for U.S. Senator and has served with distinction in this body as chairman of two prestigious committees, as well as serving as the President pro tempore. The many personal sacrifices that Senator Thurmond has made over the past nine decades demonstrate his respect for our institution of government and our Nation's history. He knows all too well that when one fails to stand for his principles, those principles will perish. And Strom Thurmond, as a young paratrooper, as a Presidential candidate, and now, as a U.S. Senator, stands--sometimes all alone--for the greatest principles on which America was founded. Strom even had to switch parties--not once, but effectively, twice, to keep advancing his strongly held principles and ideals. In a sense, though Senator Thurmond has been a Dixiecrat, a Democrat and a Republican, he has always been, most of all, a proud American. Strom Thurmond has witnessed incredible growth and change in our Nation and our world, and his knowledge of our past and vision for our future is crucial to our present. The Senator's strong leadership, patriotism, dependability, and devotion to duty is inspiring--and his stamina is legendary. The people of South Carolina are fortunate to have such an able gentleman represent them; we here in the U.S. Senate are lucky to stand with him; and all Americans should be grateful for Senator Thurmond's 41 years of service in the Senate and proud of his 94 years of service to this country.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Stealth Tax Prevention Act. Perhaps the most important power given to the Congress in the Constitution of the United States is bestowed in article I, section 8--the power to tax. This authority is vested in Congress because, as elected representatives, Congress remains accountable to the public when they lay and collect taxes. Last year, Mr. President, Congress passed the Congressional Review Act of 1996, which provides that when a major agency rule takes effect, Congress has 60 days to review it. During this time period, Congress has the option to pass a disapproval resolution. If no such resolution is passed, the rule then goes into effect. The Internal Revenue Service, as the President here knows, has enormous power to affect the lives and the livelihoods of American taxpayers through their authority to interpret the Tax Code. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act that I am introducing today, along with Senator Bond and Senator Hagel, will expand the definition of a major rule to include, Mr. President, any IRS regulation which increases Federal revenue. Why? Because we desperately need this today. For example, if the Office of Management and Budget finds that the implementation and enforcement of a rule has resulted in an increase of Federal revenues over current practices or revenues anticipated from the rule on the date of the enactment of the statute under which the rule is promulgated. Therefore, the Stealth Tax Prevention Act will allow Congress to review the regulation and take appropriate measures to avoid raising taxes on hard-working Americans, in most cases, small businesses. Mr. President, the Founding Fathers' intent, as you know, was to put the power to lay and collect taxes in the hands of elected Members of Congress, not in the hands of bureaucrats who are shielded from public accountability. It is appropriate, I believe, that the IRS's breach of authority is addressed, in light of the fact that we are celebrating this week Small Business Week. The discretionary authority of the Internal Revenue Service exposes small businesses, farmers, and others to the arbitrary whims of bureaucrats, thus creating an uncertain and, under certain cases, hostile environment in which to conduct day-to-day activities. Most of these people do not have lobbyists that work for them, other than their elected Representatives, the way it should be. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act will be particularly helpful in lowering the tax burden on small business which suffers disproportionately, Mr. President, from IRS regulations. This burden discourages the startup of new firms and ultimately the creation of new jobs in the economy, which has really made America great today. Americans pay Federal income taxes. They, Mr. President, as you well know, pay State income taxes. They pay property taxes. On the way to work in the morning they pay a gasoline tax when they fill up their car, and a sales tax when they buy a cup of coffee. Mr. President, average Americans in small businesses are saddled with the highest tax burden in our country's history. Allowing bureaucrats to increase taxes even further, at their own discretion through interpretation of the Tax Code is intolerable. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act will leave tax policy where it belongs, to elected Members of the Congress, not unelected and unaccountable IRS bureaucrats. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.