Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I think the amendment speaks for itself, I say to Senator Warner.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, through the Chair, I would inquire of the Senator from Virginia, what does he see which would stop those various officers from complying with those requirements and still allow the national intelligence director to have overall management? That is my question to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. SPECTER. Then in that event I will stay standing.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I had the floor, but I do yield it.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3706 on behalf of Senator Shelby, Senator Roberts, Senator Bond, Senator Wyden, Senator Bayh, Senator Feinstein, and myself.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this is one of two amendments which I intend to offer to strengthen the position of the national intelligence director. At the outset, I join many others in complimenting the chairwoman, Senator Collins, and the ranking member, Senator Lieberman, for their leadership and their outstanding work in presenting the bill which is now on the floor. This measure is a long time in coming for decision by the Congress. In my view, had there been a strong national intelligence director in existence prior to September 11, 2001, the attack on 9/11 might well have been prevented. There were many indicators present. Had they all been put together, I think there is a good chance we could have avoided the calamity of that day. There is a famous FBI report from Phoenix about this suspicious character who wanted to learn how to fly an airplane but who was not interested in takeoffs or landings. That information never got to the appropriate authority in headquarters at the FBI. There were two al- Qaida suspects in Kuala Lumpur known to the Central Intelligence Agency, information not communicated to the INS, to Immigration, so that those two al-Qaida agents came into the United States and were among the 19 hijackers who perpetrated the atrocities of 9/11. There was an extensive investigation conducted by the Minneapolis office of the FBI, the famous 13-page, single-spaced memorandum by special agent Coleen Rowley about Zacarias Moussaoui. Had those leads been followed, had there been an application for a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act using the right standard--the FBI used the wrong standard--that would have produced a great deal of information which could have, in combination with other information, been pieced together to have warned us of the impending attack. There is the information from NSA, where there was the tip that something was going to happen on 9/11 which was either not translated or not communicated to the Intelligence Committee. There had been the information about Murad, an al-Qaida operative back in 1996, and his plans to fly an airplane into the CIA. Those are only some of the threats. In combination and along with others, had we had all the information together, had we known what could have been pieced together, I think the likelihood is present that 9/11 could have been prevented. During my tenure as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee during the 104th Congress, the Intelligence Committee reported a bill, S. 1718, which sought to lodge effective power in the Director of Central Intelligence. That position theoretically was in charge of all the intelligence community but, because of lack of authority, lack of budget control, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency was never able to carry out the role of being the unifier, the real leader of the intelligence community. In section 707 of that bill, it provided for: Enhancement of authority of Director of Central Intelligence to manage, budget, personnel, and activities of the intelligence community. On a cross referral, by the time it got to the Armed Services Committee, the substance was taken out. There was a big turf battle and the effort to lodge authority in the Director of CIA to do effective direction and management of the Central Intelligence Agency went to naught. Thirty days after 9/11, Senator Lieberman and I introduced legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security. That was on October 11 of 2001. When special agent Coleen Rowley testified before the Judiciary Committee in June of 2002, there was finally impetus to get support from the administration to move ahead with a Department of Homeland Security, and when the matter was debated on the floor of the Senate, the effort was made to vest authority in the Secretary of Homeland Security to direct other intelligence agencies. It seemed to us that when we were creating a new department, Homeland Security, this was an opportune time to pick up the strands of what had been attempted by S. 1718 back in 1996, and by many others. It wasn't my idea alone. The Scowcroft Commission had come up with similar recommendations. Others had called for real power and real authority in a national director. It seemed to us that that was the time, with the new Department of Homeland Security, to give this effective power to the newly created Secretary of Homeland Security. Our efforts, again, were unsuccessful because of the turf battles, because of the interests of the CIA and the Department of Intelligence, DIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, and the Department of Defense and the FBI, and the other agencies to protect their own turf. In October of 2002, the House of Representatives passed a bill and went home leaving the Senate with the alternative of either taking the bill or letting the matter go over until the next year. I was prepared at that time to offer the amendment to give the Secretary of Homeland Security authority to direct some real power. After talking to Secretary Ridge, talking with the Vice President, and talking with the President, rather than have no bill at all, it was decided to proceed and let the matter stand without having that kind of authority for the Secretary of Homeland Security. There the matter languished until the families of the victims of September 11 became a powerful advocacy group, which led to the creation of the 9/11 Commission, and the 9/11 Commission report was filed in July of this year. There was very substantial momentum finally to create a national intelligence director with some real authority to really manage the entire community. Senator McCain, Senator Lieberman, Senator Bayh, and I have produced a bill as had been recommended by the 9/11 Commission and then the Governmental Affairs Committee proceeded to have hearings, came back after the recess in late July, had hearings in August, marked up the bill, and passed it out of committee last week. So it is now on the floor in a context where there is considerable public pressure created by the 9/11 Commission report and what the families of the victims have done. And the momentum is present. There has been very substantial opposition to moving at this time. There are those who say this legislation is precipitous, that it ought not to be passed on the eve of an election, that we have more of an eye on 11/2, the election date, than we have on 9/11. I reject those contentions. This issue has been under study for decades, and personally on my behalf since I spent 8 years on the Intelligence Committee and chaired the committee during the 104th Congress. The 9/11 Commission unanimously and emphatically has called for the creation of a national intelligence director. It is my view that is a proposition whose time has come. When I offered the amendment in committee, which was rejected although we received five votes in the committee, there was very intense lobbying coming, as I understand it--you can never present competent evidence which would stand up in court but a lot of lobbying from the protectors of their turf. My amendment to create the strength of the national intelligence director was deferred until this day. It is my hope and expectation that from this bill we will have a national intelligence director if it is the one proposed by amendment or if it is the one which is in the bill which has been reported by the committee. It is my conclusion after very substantial study and after very substantial thought and after very substantial consideration that we need a very strong national intelligence director. We need an independent national intelligence director who will stand up to the executive branch, who will stand up to the Congress, who will tell the Congress exactly what is needed by way of resources, and who will have the stature and strength to get that job done. There is an enormous controversy about the resolution to authorize the use of force which Congress passed and the President acted on--a lot of concern about the adequacy of the intelligence which led to that judgment, the 77 votes in this body joined by a majority of Democrats as well as Republicans. But there is no doubt that however one views the resolution for use of force, it would have been highly desirable to have better intelligence. The amendment which is embodied in amendment No. 3706 would give substantial additional authority to the national intelligence director than is contained in the committee bill. It would put the CIA under the national intelligence director. The national intelligence director would have the authority to manage and oversee the intelligence community, including the CIA, the NSA, the National Security Agency, the NRO, the National Reconnaissance Office, the NGA, the National Geospacial Agency, and national collection from the Defense Intelligence Agency leaving tactical intelligence within the Department of Defense as it is now. Valid considerations have been raised that tactical intelligence ought to be left in the Department of Defense so the Department of Defense can carry out its functions. My amendment would leave that important facet with the Department of Defense. The national intelligence director under the committee bill has budget authority over the Federal Bureau of Investigation. After a great deal of thought, this amendment No. 3706 does not include the FBI under the supervision, direction, and control of the national intelligence director as the other agencies enumerated would have the national intelligence director with the authority to supervise, direct, and control which, in my judgment, would give the national intelligence director the authority to manage and oversee the national intelligence community in an effective way. The essence of my bill was circulated to the Governmental Affairs Committee with a letter dated August 3 of this year. I put the bill into the Congressional Record on September 7. I introduced the bill on September 15 under the caption of S. 2081. The amendment embodied in No. 3706 is somewhat different, as I have described it. We are dealing here with agencies where there are inbred cultures of concealment. It is very difficult to get information, even as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. My experience has shown it was very difficult for the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency to know fully and adequately what has happened within his own agency. One of the matters which I referred to during the committee hearings was information which was disseminated by the CIA Chief of Reports and Requirements in the Soviet East European Division of the Central Intelligence Agency. This was a man who was in the CIA from 1950 until 1991. He had information which was tainted by the Soviet Union--information where the individual conceded that he knew the intelligence came from Soviet-controlled sources and that he disseminated that information at the highest levels of government without disclosing that fact to the individuals whom he transmitted the information that it came from controlled or tainted sources. That information was transmitted, including transmission on January 13 of 1993. So it went to President George Herbert Walker Bush and it went to President-elect Bill Clinton. When I took his testimony and expressed shock at what he had done, the individual confidently responded that he had acted entirely properly because disclosure of the controlled source that the information was tainted would have made it even harder, as he put it, to sell the intelligence to policymakers; that there was no reason to believe the Soviets used deception was inaccurate, and no customer would use it unless he had concealed the fact it was tainted. This was an extraordinary approach, as I saw it, but I think revealing as to what happens within the Central Intelligence Agency, within the Bureau, where the individuals have their empires, where they know better than anybody else, and transmit information to the President of the United States and the President-elect, knowing it to be tainted and not telling the President or President-elect that it was tainted because they then would not use it, and saying that the information was given because the CIA agent, the CIA individual, knew that it was correct. That is just the height of audacity but I think indicative of the kinds of problems we face with the cultures of concealment that we have in the intelligence agencies. Another matter which I refer to, in the course of the committee hearings, is relevant for presentation; that is, the difficulty of having adequate oversight over the intelligence agencies and the duties that the intelligence agencies have to make disclosures to the oversight committee. In the spring of 2002, when I chaired a subcommittee of oversight on the Department of Justice and had a wide-ranging subpoena, a document was presented which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record, Mr. President.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have listened with a keen interest, as I always do, when the Senator from Virginia speaks. The concerns which I have seen in my tenure on the Intelligence Committee and as chair-- and I served with the Senator from Virginia on the Intelligence Committee--is the dominance of the Department of Defense on the budget and the lack of coordination with the other intelligence agencies, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the counterintelligence branch of the FBI. The citations of authority which the Senator from Virginia raises can all be accommodated. In a very careful way, very carefully crafted, we have left the Department of Defense with the necessary intelligence gathering for them to perform their mission and their function. When the national intelligence director has overall supervision and management, it does not mean that the Secretary of Defense will not have access to information from the NRO or the NSA or the other branches. When we hear those citations of authority, they can all be molded consistent with the amendment I have offered, which, as the most recent enactment, governs and dominates. So I know the sincerity and I know the perspective of the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. When I had introduced S. 1718 back in April of 1996, and it was referred to the Armed Services Committee, it was emasculated, really, on a turf struggle. I think there is a very heavy overtone of the turf battle which is present here this afternoon at this moment.

Mr. SPECTER. I hadn't meant to promote Senator Warner.

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

Mr. SPECTER. If you are confused on the substance of the question, maybe the court reporter could repeat it.

Mr. SPECTER. There is nothing in the amendment which takes the so- called residual authority from the Secretary of Defense. The amendment gives to the national intelligence director management and supervision, but it does not undercut the directions of the statutes to which you have referred.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we can get more into the details on rebuttal as to what Senator Collins has said. I do not think it is accurate that we are taking away key authority from the Department of Defense, but I want to print in the Record a letter signed by 14 Senators objecting to the committee bill saying that it ``does not give the NID additional authorities will be required to provide the unity of leadership and accountability necessary for real intelligence reform. In particular, we feel strongly that the NID must have day-to-day operational control of all elements of the Intelligence Community performing national missions.'' It is signed by Senators Roberts, Shelby, DeWine, Hatch, Lott, Snowe, Voinovich, Bayh, Graham, Wyden, Bond, Hagel, Chambliss, and myself. There is the current chairman, Senator Roberts, and three prior chairmen, Senator Shelby, Senator Graham, and myself. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record together with a memorandum from me to the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee dated December 5, 1995. A December 9, 1996 memorandum has already been printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry: I believe we have 2 more minutes until 4:30.

Mr. SPECTER. I seek recognition to make a comment about the pending amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, by way of a very brief reply at this time, others will say the committee bill goes too far, and the committee bill stands between others who would reject any reorganization of the national intelligence community. The amendment I have offered doesn't go to that point. The question is, what is the best way to reorganize the national intelligence community? When reference is made to the comments by Mr. Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, he made an analysis of S. 2811, which is a bill similar to the amendment now pending, but it is not the same. I think it is an overstatement to say that the 9/11 Commission rejects the amendment I have offered because it hasn't been considered by the Commission. Former Senator Bob Kerrey, who was vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee during my tenure as chairman, called me, unsolicited, and said that he favored the elements which I had offered and thought it was preferable to have the national intelligence director with greater authority, which I was proposing. I believe it is a fair statement to say that the 9/11 Commission would be pleased to see us move to establish a national intelligence director, whether it was along the lines of the committee report or whether it was along the lines of my amendment. I say, too, that it is important to establish a national intelligence director with as many powers as we can reasonably give the national intelligence director. I think that is what the 9/11 Commission is looking for. I don't think it can be accurately said that the 9/11 Commission rejects the substance of my amendment. Certainly, former Senator Bob Kerrey, who was a member of the 9/11 Commission, was not, as far as I can say from an unsolicited call. He said he liked the substance of what I was offering. I think other Senators are going to be interested in participating in the debate. It was unknown, generally, what sequence would occur as to the offering of the amendment. But I think others will want to come and be heard. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. The essence of the document disclosed that there had been an effort by ranking officials in the Department of Justice to try to influence the FBI not to pursue an investigation on campaign finance irregularities in December of 1996 because at that time Attorney General Reno was under consideration for reappointment. The relevant part of this document from Director Freeh to Mr. Esposito, who was his deputy handling this matter: I also advised the Attorney General of Lee Radek's comment to you that there was a lot of ``pressure'' on him and PIS [Public Integrity Section] regarding this case because the ``Attorney General's job might hang in the balance'' (or words to that effect). I stated that those comments would be enough for me to take him and the Criminal Division off the case completely. This matter was not brought to the attention of the Judiciary Committee as a matter of oversight. In my judgment, this is the kind of a matter which the Director, on his own, without request, without knowledge by the oversight committee, without subpoena, as it was disclosed some 4 years later, should have turned over as a matter of oversight. Another amendment which I intend to offer would give the national intelligence director a 10-year term on the analogy to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. That would enable the director of national intelligence to have a substantial degree of independence since his term would outlast the term of the President--4 years or, with reelection, a total of 8 years. We have seen in today's press reports of very substantial problems in the FBI, where there are inadequate translators and a great deal of information from al-Qaida has gone untranslated. I have talked to FBI Director Mueller, who tells me the information is dated, but there is still a significant problem in having sufficient translators to handle that important matter so we have our intelligence in hand. The national intelligence director is going to have to be strong and independent, with enough stature, with a tenure of a 10-year term, to come to the Congress and be able to see to it that adequate funds are provided for the intelligence community. The media reports are full of information that show very substantial problems on what would happen in Iraq after a military victory with the insurgents. The national intelligence director is going to have to be strong and independent and bring those matters to the attention of the Congress as well as to the executive branch. It is my hope that in this legislation we will do a complete job and structure the responsibilities of the national intelligence director to give him the authority on budget and the authority on supervision, direction, and control to effectively manage and oversee the entire intelligence community. That is an abbreviated statement of a great many considerations. At this time, I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce the Higher Education Preparation Program Act of 2004, which is legislation designed to expand higher educational opportunities for American students. There is no doubt as to the benefit of receiving a post-secondary education. The level of education that individuals accumulate has an important influence on their experience in the labor market. According to 2002 U.S. Census Bureau statistics on educational attainment and earnings, the mean earnings of men with a bachelor's degree is $63,354, while the mean earnings of men with a high school degree is $32,363. This is a difference of more than $30,000 or 97 percent. In recent years, there have been clear signs that more Americans are pursuing higher education opportunities. In June 2002, USA Today reported that 63 percent of high school graduates go to college immediately after graduation, the highest percentage in U.S. history. Yet not all of the news on college graduation rates has been good. Only 18 percent of African Americans and 11 percent of Hispanic high school graduates earn a bachelor's degree by their late twenties, compared to 33 percent of whites according to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in 2001. Further, in 2000, NCES reported that 22 percent of low-income, college qualified high school graduates do not pursue post-secondary education, compared to 4 percent of high-income graduates. As I travel through Pennsylvania, I still hear from too many middle school and high school students that they do not have the preparation necessary to enroll in higher education institutions. On a recent trip to the Commonwealth, I joined Andrew McKelvey--the founder of the McKelvey Foundation--to announce federal funding for entrepreneurial scholarships to rural, low-income Pennsylvania high school graduates. During that trip, I talked to Mr. McKelvey regarding the need to not only ensure access to funding for students to pursue higher education, but the need to both inform students about the importance of higher education, as well as prepare students for the application process. The bill I am introducing today, the Higher Education Preparation Program Act of 2004, will help to educate middle school and high school students in grades 8, 9, and 10, about higher education opportunities. This bill will create a program which will both provide students with information on higher education opportunities and prepare students for the process of applying to institutions of higher education by providing access to higher education preparation instruction. The availability of information on higher education opportunities makes an enormous difference to students contemplating continuing their education at the undergraduate level. My legislation will provide a grant to a nonprofit organization to develop a core curriculum to be taught in the classroom to equip middle and high school students with the appropriate skills and knowledge to pursue post-secondary education. Given the importance of higher education, it makes sense to prepare students for the undergraduate process as part of their class instruction to ensure that all students have access to the necessary information to attain their goals. To this end, middle schools and high schools participating in the program would dedicate one hour each week of their classroom activity to higher education preparation of students utilizing the core curriculum. Additionally, I seek to create a network of intensive academic support for students by encouraging public-private partnerships to emphasize the importance of higher education. Partnerships with private entities create a unique opportunity for middle schools and high schools to supplement and enhance the core curriculum by offering appropriate enrichments, including guest speakers, videos and web-based services. For example, through these partnerships, middle school and high school students will gain first-hand knowledge of the skills that businesses are seeking by having the opportunity to speak with business leaders, as well as perhaps tour local facilities. This will underscore the significance and importance of higher education for students as they embark on their future career paths. To implement this initiative, my bill would authorize $10 million annually for fiscal years 2005 through 2010, for a nonprofit organization to develop a core curriculum which has as its cornerstone higher education preparation, as well as to establish this higher education preparation demonstration project. Under this project, five State educational agencies would be awarded federal funding to offer higher education preparation programs using the core curriculum in middle and high schools with historically low rates of student application and admission to post-secondary institutions. It is my hope that this Act will ensure that students who wish to enroll in a higher education institution will have access to the tools and resources necessary to help them plan for undergraduate study. We must take this step to encourage students to pursue their educational goals especially those who might not otherwise have this opportunity. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this Act, and urge its swift adoption.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce the Higher Education Preparation Program Act of 2004, which is legislation designed to expand higher educational opportunities for American students. There is no doubt as to the benefit of receiving a post-secondary education. The level of education that individuals accumulate has an important influence on their experience in the labor market. According to 2002 U.S. Census Bureau statistics on educational attainment and earnings, the mean earnings of men with a bachelor's degree is $63,354, while the mean earnings of men with a high school degree is $32,363. This is a difference of more than $30,000 or 97 percent. In recent years, there have been clear signs that more Americans are pursuing higher education opportunities. In June 2002, USA Today reported that 63 percent of high school graduates go to college immediately after graduation, the highest percentage in U.S. history. Yet not all of the news on college graduation rates has been good. Only 18 percent of African Americans and 11 percent of Hispanic high school graduates earn a bachelor's degree by their late twenties, compared to 33 percent of whites according to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in 2001. Further, in 2000, NCES reported that 22 percent of low-income, college qualified high school graduates do not pursue post-secondary education, compared to 4 percent of high-income graduates. As I travel through Pennsylvania, I still hear from too many middle school and high school students that they do not have the preparation necessary to enroll in higher education institutions. On a recent trip to the Commonwealth, I joined Andrew McKelvey--the founder of the McKelvey Foundation--to announce federal funding for entrepreneurial scholarships to rural, low-income Pennsylvania high school graduates. During that trip, I talked to Mr. McKelvey regarding the need to not only ensure access to funding for students to pursue higher education, but the need to both inform students about the importance of higher education, as well as prepare students for the application process. The bill I am introducing today, the Higher Education Preparation Program Act of 2004, will help to educate middle school and high school students in grades 8, 9, and 10, about higher education opportunities. This bill will create a program which will both provide students with information on higher education opportunities and prepare students for the process of applying to institutions of higher education by providing access to higher education preparation instruction. The availability of information on higher education opportunities makes an enormous difference to students contemplating continuing their education at the undergraduate level. My legislation will provide a grant to a nonprofit organization to develop a core curriculum to be taught in the classroom to equip middle and high school students with the appropriate skills and knowledge to pursue post-secondary education. Given the importance of higher education, it makes sense to prepare students for the undergraduate process as part of their class instruction to ensure that all students have access to the necessary information to attain their goals. To this end, middle schools and high schools participating in the program would dedicate one hour each week of their classroom activity to higher education preparation of students utilizing the core curriculum. Additionally, I seek to create a network of intensive academic support for students by encouraging public-private partnerships to emphasize the importance of higher education. Partnerships with private entities create a unique opportunity for middle schools and high schools to supplement and enhance the core curriculum by offering appropriate enrichments, including guest speakers, videos and web-based services. For example, through these partnerships, middle school and high school students will gain first-hand knowledge of the skills that businesses are seeking by having the opportunity to speak with business leaders, as well as perhaps tour local facilities. This will underscore the significance and importance of higher education for students as they embark on their future career paths. To implement this initiative, my bill would authorize $10 million annually for fiscal years 2005 through 2010, for a nonprofit organization to develop a core curriculum which has as its cornerstone higher education preparation, as well as to establish this higher education preparation demonstration project. Under this project, five State educational agencies would be awarded federal funding to offer higher education preparation programs using the core curriculum in middle and high schools with historically low rates of student application and admission to post-secondary institutions. It is my hope that this Act will ensure that students who wish to enroll in a higher education institution will have access to the tools and resources necessary to help them plan for undergraduate study. We must take this step to encourage students to pursue their educational goals especially those who might not otherwise have this opportunity. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this Act, and urge its swift adoption.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce the Intelligence Reformation Act of 2004, also known as the ``9/11 Act.'' This bill creates clear, unambiguous lines of authority in the intelligence community, which assures both accountability and sufficient command authority for a new Department and Director of Intelligence to manage and coordinate the intelligence community, break down existing stovepipes, demand accountability among the agencies, set requirements, and use new directive authority to quickly task collection and analysis while moving personnel and resources to respond to new and emerging situations. The unanimous recommendations which accompany the Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States (``9/11 Commission''), and the Executive orders issued on August 27, 2004, relating to information sharing, intelligence community management, and the National Counterterrorism Center, are intended to address systematic, long-term problems with the U.S. Intelligence Community that have been highlighted by the various investigations into the 9/11 tragedy, including the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Iraq Pre-War Intelligence, and the congressional Joint Inquiry recommendations issued in 2002. Our country has during the last decade suffered through an escalating cycle of intelligence failures while witnessing the onset of new global threats--most notably terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The existing intelligence community structure is disorganized and dysfunctional, and thus incapable of effectively responding to these threats. The restructuring recommendations of the President and 9/11 Commission are consistent with the reorganization efforts I undertook as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee during the 104th Congress, my efforts to install a Director of National Intelligence beginning in 1986, and my work in 1998-1999 on the Commission to Assess the Organization of the Federal Government to Combat the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (``WMD Commission''), as well as that of no fewer than 15 independent commissions and legislative or executive branch attempts at restructuring the intelligence community, beginning in 1955 with the Second Hoover Commission. It is imperative that we immediately put into place a national security structure that is competent to confront this enemy. While the 9/11 Commission and recent Executive orders provide helpful guidance, much discretion is left to Congress in determining the scope and nature of the restructuring of the intelligence community. Under the legislation I introduce today, budgetary authority will be a principal means for the new Director of Intelligence to maintain supervision and control of the intelligence community. For example, the Director would have the National Foreign Intelligence Program appropriation go directly to him, and that appropriation would remain under his jurisdiction through the budget execution process. Further, enhanced tasking authority would facilitate coordinated intelligence collection and analysis and overcome the ``culture of concealment'' that exists among intelligence entities. And clear lines of authority, including the ability of the Director to hire and fire intelligence community personnel, will in turn avoid the uncertainty of ``serving two masters.'' Clear lines of authority means that intelligence community personnel will not suffer from the disorder and paralysis that epitomized the community prior to 9/11, and which continues today. This legislation differs from the 9/11 Commission recommendations on restructuring the intelligence community in two main respects: the institution of a ten-year term for the Director of Intelligence in order to remove him from political influence, and the direct control and supervision by the Director of the major national intelligence community entities, rather than the untested ``dual hatting'' approach favored by the 9/11 Commission. I also believe that any legislation must address the FBI failures that preceded 9/11. By placing the certain FBI functions under the direction of the new Director of Intelligence, FBI missteps in communication, intelligence gathering and analysis that contributed to failures in anticipating the 9/11 attack and in intercepting the hijackers can be averted in the future, while adding necessary safeguards to protect privacy and civil liberties. And this bill, like the bill I have introduced with Senators McCain and Lieberman, codifies the 9/11 Commission recommendations on FBI reform. Other important reforms undertaken by this legislation are also contained in the 9/11 Commission bill. For example, consistent with the recent conclusions of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the legislation would require the National Intelligence Council to incorporate alternative views held by elements of the intelligence community into National Intelligence Estimates (NIE), and be certified as approved for publication by the Director of Intelligence and the Chair of the National Intelligence Council. The Director and Department of Intelligence that I recommend fully integrate the 9/11 Commission and President's important tenets of central direction, coordination, and control by a high-ranking intelligence official and would bring crucial expertise and immediate direction to the many intelligence challenges we face. Creating a Department of Intelligence, run by a Director empowered with full budget execution and clear line authority over national intelligence, but without a large new bureaucratic infrastructure, is a proposal which best meets the need of the intelligence community.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce the Intelligence Reformation Act of 2004, also known as the ``9/11 Act.'' This bill creates clear, unambiguous lines of authority in the intelligence community, which assures both accountability and sufficient command authority for a new Department and Director of Intelligence to manage and coordinate the intelligence community, break down existing stovepipes, demand accountability among the agencies, set requirements, and use new directive authority to quickly task collection and analysis while moving personnel and resources to respond to new and emerging situations. The unanimous recommendations which accompany the Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States (``9/11 Commission''), and the Executive orders issued on August 27, 2004, relating to information sharing, intelligence community management, and the National Counterterrorism Center, are intended to address systematic, long-term problems with the U.S. Intelligence Community that have been highlighted by the various investigations into the 9/11 tragedy, including the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Iraq Pre-War Intelligence, and the congressional Joint Inquiry recommendations issued in 2002. Our country has during the last decade suffered through an escalating cycle of intelligence failures while witnessing the onset of new global threats--most notably terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The existing intelligence community structure is disorganized and dysfunctional, and thus incapable of effectively responding to these threats. The restructuring recommendations of the President and 9/11 Commission are consistent with the reorganization efforts I undertook as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee during the 104th Congress, my efforts to install a Director of National Intelligence beginning in 1986, and my work in 1998-1999 on the Commission to Assess the Organization of the Federal Government to Combat the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (``WMD Commission''), as well as that of no fewer than 15 independent commissions and legislative or executive branch attempts at restructuring the intelligence community, beginning in 1955 with the Second Hoover Commission. It is imperative that we immediately put into place a national security structure that is competent to confront this enemy. While the 9/11 Commission and recent Executive orders provide helpful guidance, much discretion is left to Congress in determining the scope and nature of the restructuring of the intelligence community. Under the legislation I introduce today, budgetary authority will be a principal means for the new Director of Intelligence to maintain supervision and control of the intelligence community. For example, the Director would have the National Foreign Intelligence Program appropriation go directly to him, and that appropriation would remain under his jurisdiction through the budget execution process. Further, enhanced tasking authority would facilitate coordinated intelligence collection and analysis and overcome the ``culture of concealment'' that exists among intelligence entities. And clear lines of authority, including the ability of the Director to hire and fire intelligence community personnel, will in turn avoid the uncertainty of ``serving two masters.'' Clear lines of authority means that intelligence community personnel will not suffer from the disorder and paralysis that epitomized the community prior to 9/11, and which continues today. This legislation differs from the 9/11 Commission recommendations on restructuring the intelligence community in two main respects: the institution of a ten-year term for the Director of Intelligence in order to remove him from political influence, and the direct control and supervision by the Director of the major national intelligence community entities, rather than the untested ``dual hatting'' approach favored by the 9/11 Commission. I also believe that any legislation must address the FBI failures that preceded 9/11. By placing the certain FBI functions under the direction of the new Director of Intelligence, FBI missteps in communication, intelligence gathering and analysis that contributed to failures in anticipating the 9/11 attack and in intercepting the hijackers can be averted in the future, while adding necessary safeguards to protect privacy and civil liberties. And this bill, like the bill I have introduced with Senators McCain and Lieberman, codifies the 9/11 Commission recommendations on FBI reform. Other important reforms undertaken by this legislation are also contained in the 9/11 Commission bill. For example, consistent with the recent conclusions of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the legislation would require the National Intelligence Council to incorporate alternative views held by elements of the intelligence community into National Intelligence Estimates (NIE), and be certified as approved for publication by the Director of Intelligence and the Chair of the National Intelligence Council. The Director and Department of Intelligence that I recommend fully integrate the 9/11 Commission and President's important tenets of central direction, coordination, and control by a high-ranking intelligence official and would bring crucial expertise and immediate direction to the many intelligence challenges we face. Creating a Department of Intelligence, run by a Director empowered with full budget execution and clear line authority over national intelligence, but without a large new bureaucratic infrastructure, is a proposal which best meets the need of the intelligence community.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to submit a resolution reauthorizing the John Heinz Senate Fellowship Program. This Congressional fellowship program, created in 1992, is a fitting tribute to my late colleague and dear friend, United States Senator John Heinz. Senator Heinz dedicated his life and much of his Congressional career to improving the lives of senior citizens. He believed that Congress has a special responsibility to serve as a guardian for those who cannot protect themselves. This fellowship program, which focuses on aging issues, honors the life and continues the legacy of Senator Heinz. During his 20 years in the Congress, John Heinz compiled an enviable record of accomplishments. While he was successful in many areas, he built a national reputation for his strong commitment to improving the quality of life of our Nation' s elderly. Pennsylvania, with nearly 2 million citizens aged 65 or older--over 15 percent of the population-- houses the second largest elderly population nationwide. As John traveled throughout the State, he listened to the concerns of this important constituency and came back to Washington to address their needs through policy and legislation. Senator Heinz led the fight against age discrimination by championing legislation to eliminate the requirement that older Americans must retire at age 65, and by ensuring full retirement pay for older workers employed by factories forced to close. During his Chairmanship of the Senate Special Committee on Aging from 1981-1986 and his tenure as Ranking Minority Member from 1987-1991, Senator Heinz used his position to improve health care accessibility and affordability for senior citizens and to reduce fraud and abuse within Federal health care programs. Congress enacted his legislation to provide Medicare recipients a lower cost alternative to fee-for-service medicine, as well as his legislation to add a hospice benefit to the Medicare program. John also recognized the great need for nursing home reforms. He was successful in passing legislation mandating that safety measures be implemented in nursing homes and ensuring that nursing home residents cannot be bound and tied to their beds or wheelchairs. The John Heinz Senate Fellowship Program will help continue the efforts of Senator Heinz to give our Nation's elderly the quality of life they deserve. The program encourages the identification and training of new leadership in aging policy by awarding fellowships to qualified candidates to serve in a Senate office or with a Senate Committee. The goal of this program is to advance the development of public policy in issues affecting senior citizens. Administered by the Heinz Family Foundation in conjunction with the Secretary of the Senate, the program allows fellows to bring their firsthand experience in aging issues to the work of Congress. Heinz fellows who are advocates for aging issues spend a year to help us learn about the effects of Federal policies on our elderly citizens, those who are social workers help us find better ways to protect our nation's elderly from abuse and neglect, and those who are health care providers help us to build a strong health care system that addresses the unique needs of our seniors. The Heinz fellowship enables us to train new leaders in senior citizen advocacy and aging policy. The fellows return to their respective careers with a new understanding about how to work effectively with government, so they may better fulfill their goals as senior citizen advocates. The John Heinz Senate Fellowship Program has been a valuable tool for Congress and our communities since its establishment in 1992. The continuation of this vital program will signal a sustained commitment to our nation's elderly. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this resolution, and urge its swift adoption.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss an amendment which I have been working on since the Subcommittee on Homeland Security marked up the bill in July which would provide much- needed resources to address the security needs of high-risk nonprofits. I am pleased that we have worked out a compromise where this language will be included as part of Senator Baucus's amendment on custom user fees. This language will appropriate $50 million for a program at the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, to provide security enhancements and training to nonprofit organizations determined to be at high risk of international terrorist attacks. Funds would be distributed by DHS based on risk assessments, in consultation with State and local authorities. The $50 million figure is firm, and there is no doubt that there will be a need for more than $50 million. This is a start. This is a start on the protection of 501(c)(3)s, and the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security is limited to establishing the priority for the use of the $50 million. The assistance is intended for basic security enhancements to protect American citizens from car bombs and other lethal terrorist attacks. It is intended to be used for installation of equipment such as concrete barriers, blast-proof doors, mylar window coatings, and hardened parking lot gates, as well as associated training. The Director of Central Intelligence has stated that al-Qaida has turned its attention to ``soft targets.'' Al-Qaida's willingness to attack soft targets of all types has been made readily apparent with attacks in the United States, England, Canada, Spain, Germany, Iraq, Tunisia, Kenya, Morocco, and Turkey, including an international Red Cross building, synagogues, train stations, hotels, airports, restaurants, night clubs, and cultural and community centers. Many of these soft targets are nonprofit organizations which provide vital health, social, community, educational, and other services to millions of Americans every day. If nonprofit organizations are forced to divert funds to cover the entire cost of security measures, those funds will deplete resources for vital human services, including capacity to respond to disasters. I have been encourage to support this language by a wide cross section of America's nonprofits. Supporters of this measure include: American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging; American Jewish Committee; American Jewish Congress; American Red Cross; American Society of Association Executives; Association of Art Museum Directors; Association of Jewish Aging Services of North America; Independent Sector, National Assembly of Health and Human Service Organizations; National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities; Theater Communications Group; Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations; United Jewish Communities, representing 155 Jewish Federations; United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism; United Way of America; and YMCA of the USA. The assistance would be delivered pursuant to pending authorizing legislation which Senator Mikulski and I have introduced as S. 2275 which was ordered reported by the Governmental Affairs Committee. I thank the chairman and other Senators involved in moving this important amendment forward, and I urge my colleagues to support this effort through the conference committee and to the President's desk.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to discuss an amendment which I have been discussing with the manager of the bill which would allocate $50 million for high-risk organizations as defined under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code with the priority of that $50 million to be determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security. The $50 million figure is firm, and there is no doubt that there will be a need for more than $50 million. This is a start. This is a start on the protection of 501(c)(3)s and the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security is limited to establishing the priority for the use of the $50 million. The Secretary does not have the authority to put up the $50 million. The $50 million will be firm under this amendment, with the discretion of the Secretary to establish the priority. This amendment, which is currently being reworked, is expected to have $50 million dedicated for assistance to nonprofit organizations as defined under section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code 1986 which are at high risk of international terrorist attack, with priority funding to be determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security. An earlier draft of this amendment was to be cosponsored by Senator Mikulski, Senator Santorum, Senator Murray, Senator Lugar, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Lieberman, but they are not being added as cosponsors at this point because they have to look over the change in wordage. But the substantive thrust is exactly the same, to provide $50 million for these 501(c)(3) institutions which are at high risk. The Director of Central Intelligence has stated that al-Qaida has turned its attention to so-called ``soft targets.'' Al-Qaida's willingness to attack soft targets of all kinds has been made readily apparent with the attacks in the United States, England, Canada, Spain, Germany, Iraq, Tunisia, Kenya, Morocco, and Turkey, including an International Red Cross building, synagogues, train stations, hotels, airplanes, restaurants, nightclubs, and cultural and community centers. There is broad national support for this initiative with the following organizations illustrative of the support: the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging; the American Jewish Committee; the American Jewish Congress; the American Red Cross; the American Society of Association Executives; the Association of Art Museum Directors; the Association of Jewish Aging Services of North America; Independent Sector; National Assembly of Health and Human Service Organizations; National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities; Theater Communications Group; Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations; United Jewish Communities, representing 155 Jewish federations; the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism; the United Way of America; and the YMCA of the United States of America. This assistance would be delivered pursuant to pending legislation which Senator Mikulski and I have introduced as Senate bill 2275 which was marked up by the Governmental Affairs Committee and is now on the docket of the Senate. I would have waited until tomorrow to make this presentation, but I will be traveling with President Bush in Pennsylvania so I will not be here to offer the amendment. The amendment has been discussed, as I say, with the manager. I believe it is going to be accepted, but it cannot be offered at the present moment because the senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, has an amendment which he intends to offer which is broader in scope and, if enacted, may well cover this amendment. It is hard always to say what is going to happen if any amendment is offered in the future, but in the event the Byrd amendment is not accepted, then this amendment will be offered. To repeat, I think it will be acceptable to the managers; however, no commitments were made. If the Byrd amendment is not accepted, or voted for and adopted, this amendment may still be in order, depending on the precise language of the amendment to be offered by Senator Byrd. I wanted to lay out the provisions. It is very important that churches, synagogues, YMCAs, and other religious institutions have some specified protection under this Homeland Security bill. The authorizing legislation which Senator Mikulski and I produced has been marked up and approved by the Governmental Affairs Committee. It authorizes some $100 million. But in discussions with the manager, the $50 million figure appears to be acceptable. We want to proceed on that basis. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues-- Senators McCain, Lieberman, and Bayh--in introducing this legislation today which codifies the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The 9/ 11 Commission has accomplished a very important mission in stimulating the demand of the American people that action be taken to put all of our intelligence agencies under one command authority. Had this been done prior to 9/11, it is my judgment that 9/11 could have been prevented. There was the famous FBI report from Phoenix about the suspicious character who wanted to learn to fly an airplane but wasn't interested in learning to take off or land. There were the suspicious people in Kuala Lumpur who turned out to be two of the terrorists known by the CIA to be al-Qaida, but it was not told to the INS to keep them out of the country. There was the information on Zacarias Moussaoui and the work of the FBI field office in Minneapolis with the 13-page, single- spaced report filed by Agent Coleen Rowley. Those factors and others gave clear-cut clues to what was happening or about to happen. Had they been pursued and investigated, the chances are good that 9/11 could have been prevented. The Commission, in focusing public attention on the absolute necessity to have one commander, has accomplished something which had not been accomplished up until the present time. I served on the Intelligence Committee back in 1987, when we had the investigation of the Iran Contra affair. At that time I introduced legislation for a national intelligence director looking more to oversight at that time. In 1996, when I was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I introduced legislation which would have provided budget and hiring authority under the CIA Director. Technically, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency has for some time--I believe going back to 1947--the overall direction of the intelligence community. But without budget authority and without hiring and firing, it has been virtually meaningless. But in 1996, I proposed that legislation. In 2002, we moved for the creation of an Office of Homeland Security. Senator Lieberman and I introduced, 30 days after 9/11, legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security. But there were various objections to it, and the issue was not taken up seriously until mid- 2002. There was a real effort made in that legislation to have all of the intelligence agencies under one command authority. The House of Representatives passed a bill in October and left town, which they do from time to time, leaving us with the option of either taking their bill or not having a bill until the following spring. At that time I had an amendment prepared to give the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to direct all of the other intelligence agencies. As I have said on the record before, and it is worth repeating briefly, I had a conversation that afternoon with Secretary Ridge who urged me not to offer the amendment. I told him I thought it had to be done. And when I declined to accept his recommendations, I got a call from Vice President Cheney who urged the same course. When I again declined, I later talked to the President that afternoon and decided that I would await a later date to press for having that authority to direct. But this has been a gaping hole in the intelligence apparatus forever. The Scowcroft Commission filed a report, still in confidential form but widely reputed to create an individual in charge of the overall intelligence agency. So, finally, we are coming to the point where we are thinking very seriously about having one person in charge, a national director of intelligence, thanks to the focus of the 9/11 Commission. The Government Affairs Committee on which I serve, with the leadership of Senator Collins, the chairman of the committee, and Senator Lieberman, the ranking member, did something very unusual. We returned in the first week of the recess on July 30 and held additional hearings. In reviewing the work of the 9/11 Commission at that time, I expressed for the record and would repeat now briefly the concerns I have about the so-called double hatting. The 9/11 Commission has recommended that the counterintelligence unit, for example, of the FBI stay under the direction of the Director of the FBI but report also to the national intelligence director so that the Director of the FBI counterintelligence unit would be so-called double hatted. Well, I do not think that can work under the very basic principle that no one can serve two masters. The same kind of concept is present on double hatting with the CIA Director for the Department of Defense intelligence agencies. During the course of the Governmental Affairs hearings, I asked Congressman Lee Hamilton, cochairman of the 9/11 Commission, about the possibility of creating the director with a 10-year term, modeled after the FBI Director, to be able to have someone who would outlast the tenure of Presidents. I think that is also a concept which ought to be incorporated. When the Governmental Affairs Committee was considering this issue and legislation, I prepared a draft bill which I submitted to the members of the Governmental Affairs Committee back on August 3 of this year. I think it would be useful to put it into the Record. I ask unanimous consent that the text of that draft proposal be printed in the Congressional Record following my statement.