Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. At the outset, I express my admiration for the work that the Senator has done. We have worked very closely together on a number of committees, including the Terrorism Subcommittee. I note his comments and concern, which I have heard before, about the balanced budget. When the Senator says that there are offsets, it is my analysis, backed by staff, that the amendment offered by Senator Daschle does not have offsets for the full amount of $3,098,637,000. In the efforts which Senator Harkin and I have made to try to find offsets, we have come to a figure of $2,634,239,000. There is, in Senator Daschle's amendment, a provision for a declaration of emergency which seeks to take this amendment out of the provisions of the Budget Act requiring 60 votes. A concern that I have is that we will structure a bill here which will not be acceptable to both the Congress and the President. We will have another closure of the Government if we send to the House of Representatives a bill which is based on the emergency determination without offsets. I think it is not highly probable--it is virtually certain it will be rejected and we are not going to have this issue resolved. I very much lament the fact that we are here on March 12, looking at a March 15 deadline. I have spoken earlier, before the Senator came to the floor, about the efforts I had made with Mr. Panetta in trying to get this matter resolved earlier, and calls going back over several months, and referencing a letter I had written him about that. So that, if faced between the choice on finding hard budget offsets which come to, say, roughly $2.63 billion, what would the Senator's response to that be, contrasted with the pending amendment?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in my capacity as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, I have been struggling to meet the requirements of these three important departments in a way to present on the floor of the Senate a bill which can pass and will be signed by the President. There is an open question as to whether there can be passage of a bill by the Senate on a 51 majority vote on the declaration of an emergency without having offsets so that we reach the objective of a balanced budget, which is the objective articulated by the Congress as well as the President. It has been this search for offsets which has occupied me for many weeks up to this instant. This morning I was on the phone trying to reach Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, with whom I have talked about these offsets again and again and again. We are still struggling to find those offsets, because if we do not find those offsets there is a real threat that there will be a stalemate again between the Congress and the President which will lead to a closing of the Government, which I think has been cataclysmic and would be even more so if it happened again. That is not something I am saying for the first time in this Chamber, on March 12, today. I said that back on November 14, on the second day of the first closing of the Government because of my view that if we are going to have political gridlock, we ought to find a way to carry forward and crystallize the issue for the November elections and then take it to the American people as to whether they prefer the approach of the Congress or prefer the approach of the administration. So as we have had these continuing resolutions late last year and again early this year, I have been talking to the administration's chief negotiator, Mr. Panetta, to try to find out the offsets. I wrote to Mr. Panetta back on February 20 of this year. I will read the first paragraph. Dear Leon: I called again this morning to try to find out from you the possible offsets to add approximately $3.3 billion for appropriations for my subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. As you know, when we talked the week before last you expected to be able to identify those offsets by last Tuesday. When I caught up with you on Friday, you thought the offsets could at least be identified by today. We had scheduled a hearing for the three Secretaries for February 21, which was deferred in the absence of those offsets, and we finally had those hearings trying to get the priorities from those top administration officials a week ago today, on March 5. I had actually gone to Wilkes-Barre, PA, on February 16 in the hope that I would see Mr. Panetta. I could not reach him on the phone. He was traveling with the President. I got to Wilkes-Barre, PA, when the President was scheduled to inspect flood damage with a number of Pennsylvania officials from the Pennsylvania congressional delegation and the Governor. I found Mr. Panetta was not there, so I had a chance to talk to the President about this issue. President Clinton said to me that he had discussed this offset question with Mr. Panetta and that offsets had been identified. I asked the President what they were, and he did not have the specifics at that time. But we are still in search of those offsets. The bill which passed the Appropriations Committee provided an additional $3.3 billion for these three departments. The amendment which has been offered by Senator Daschle reduces that figure and calls for additions of $3,098,637,000. In working with Senator Harkin, who is the ranking Democrat on this subcommittee, in what was virtually an all-night session--Bettilou Taylor nods in the affirmative--we have been able to come up with offsets of $2,634,239,000. And in my efforts to reach Mr. Panetta again this morning, talking to Miss Barbara Chow of his office, talking about offsets perhaps from extending current fees of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, there is a question as to whether that fits into this year or not. When my colleagues from the other side of the aisle have been talking about the importance of education, I will not take a back seat on education funding to anybody in this Chamber or anybody in this Congress or anybody in this country. The education issue was very heavily stressed in the Specter family when I was growing up because my parents had so little of it. Both immigrants, my mother only went to school through to the eighth grade; my father had no formal education; but my brother, my two sisters and I have been able to share in the American dream because of educational opportunity. And I am determined to see that for America today and for America tomorrow. There is another public policy consideration. Equality is in the eye of the beholder in how we get there. And that is the commitment which the Congress has made to a balanced budget, which the President has agreed to. That is why we are searching for these offsets. When comments are made about grandchildren, I concur totally on educational opportunity. But I am also concerned about not paying our bills that we run up on a credit card today, as we have for so many, many years with a national debt which exceeds $5 trillion and annual deficits which exceed $200 billion. So that is what we are struggling to do. Comments were made about summer jobs. One of the Senators on the other side of the aisle said that he talked with the assistant district attorney in Boston who pointed out that crime increased when school closed. I do not know why you have to talk to anybody special to find that out. I was an assistant district attorney many years ago. The city of Philadelphia has a lot of similarities to Boston. And I saw that when school was out crime went up, and I did not have to find that out that particular summer. It was the summer of 1960 when I saw that. I have been as concerned as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle about summer jobs, and the add-backs which are in the committee report provide for $635 million for summer youth jobs, which is what President Clinton had asked for in the add-back request. When there is talk about the importance of school-to-work by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I agree with that, too, and we have added back in the bill currently pending from the committee $182 million for school-to-work programs, which is the President's request. When you talk about the vital factor of title I compensatory education, again we have met the President's request on the add-backs putting in $1,278,887,000 billion. So that we are struggling to find enough money in offsets which will enable us to proceed, to maintain the objective of a balanced budget by having offsets. It is something which Leon Panetta is committed to do, searching for offsets. I repeat the quotation of the President when I talked to him in Wilkes-Barre on February 16 that there were offsets and we are still trying to identify them. And this business about an emergency, if that is sufficient to avoid a 61-vote determination, that all anybody has to do in any amendment which is offered by any Senator is to say it is an emergency situation. The logic is that if it is determined to be an emergency by the President and by the Congress, then that is an emergency and it is an exception to the Budget Act. But the question remains as to what kind of a vote it is which determines whether there is such an emergency. There are extensive parliamentary considerations as to the ruling of the Chair and overturning the ruling of the Chair by a majority vote, and I would like to see us not engage in that kind of parliamentary maneuvering. I would also not like to see us engage in jeopardizing portions of this bill which provide for emergency relief for the terrible floods which ravaged my State of Pennsylvania and many, many other States. That is why I am hopeful that we can come to terms and find the necessary offsets so that we maintain the commitments which I think, realistically stated, remain on both sides of the aisle to balance the budget and not to undercut that, but where we do add to education and summer jobs and school-to-work programs, programs that I totally subscribe to, that we do so in a way which comports with our responsibility on a balanced budget and meets that with offsets. At this point, I am going to continue my work on the offsets. That concludes the essence of what I have to say. I know of no other Senator seeking recognition, Mr. President, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague from Minnesota for his inquiry. I am ready to speak, but I have no objection to his taking 2 or 3 minutes. I will be here all day.

Mr. SPECTER. The problem is the $1.3 billion from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is not realizable until the year 1999. But I agree with what Senator Kohl said about working hard to try to find them. But if we do not find them, I do not believe it is realistic to send to the House legislation which is based upon anything but hard cuts which come within the timeframe that we are talking about here. I thank my colleague for engaging in this discussion.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, while the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin is on the floor, I would appreciate it if he would be willing to have an exchange of views and respond to a question or two on some of the statements which he just made.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I would yield for that purpose on a unanimous-consent request that when the response is concluded I be recognized.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. A summary has been given. I now yield to my distinguished colleague from Iowa. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as I said, I had sought recognition to talk about a second-degree amendment, which shortly will be offered on behalf of myself and Senator Harkin, which has been crafted very carefully after very, very extensive discussions among many parties. I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, and I thank the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, for his cooperation. I thought we might save some time by talking about the amendment for a few minutes while some final language change is being incorporated to accommodate some concerns which have arisen. There had been extensive discussion yesterday and today--I did not hear it yesterday because I was traveling in my home State of Pennsylvania--but I heard the discussion this morning about the need for education. I think there is a consensus in America about the importance of education, about the priority of education and about our doing everything we possibly can to stretch Federal dollars as far as we can along the education line. I know that is something the distinguished Presiding Officer, the Senator from Vermont, feels very strongly about. What we have done is structured an amendment with offsets, where we preserve the balanced budget so that we do not encumber future generations with more deficit spending. The amendment, while raising funds for education, job training, and head start, which is a very high priority, obviously, second to none--but it also is offset so as not to encumber future generations with our spending money that they have to pay for--another high priority also second to none. These are very top priorities. What we are submitting is an amendment in the second degree which will provide additional funding for education, Head Start and job- related issues. We have heard from many, many mayors and many, many commissioners in local government. A comment was made this morning about summer jobs being a very important anticrime program, which is widely recognized, not really disputed at all. This amendment would add $635 million for Summer Youth Employment Programs in the Department of Labor, a high priority item. We are adding $333 million in additional funds for the Dislocated Worker Retraining Program, which brings the total to $1.2 billion, a very, very important item in an era where there is so much downsizing, where we have seen so many layoffs, we have seen so much anxiety in America, and people in the prime of their working lives losing their jobs which they have held for 10, 15, 20, 30 years but still with many good years ahead of them. So the Dislocated Worker Retraining Program will have that additional funding which also impacts upon base closures, something which is very important to my State and very important all over the country. We are adding $182 million in additional funds for the School-to-Work Program jointly administered by the Departments of Labor and Education. This brings the School-to-Work Program to a total of $372 million. We are adding $137 million to restore fully the Head Start Program for the 1995 level. We will be adding $60 million in additional funds for the Goals 2000 program, bringing the total in the bill to $350 million. This is a matter which has produced some controversy, but I think that ultimately we may be in a position to eliminate strings so that we do not have the objection of too much Federal intervention and too much Federal control. I personally believe that education ought to be left to the local level, but the idea of standards and goals is one which has great merit. Those standards and goals can be figured out at the local level; they do not need to come from Washington. The Secretary of Education has testified of his willingness on behalf of the administration to give up some of the bureaucracy and some of the councils. Last September, the subcommittee had a hearing on Goals 2000, where we listened to people who were opposed to the program and might even be able to strike an accommodation of the disparate points of view by eliminating some of the Federal strings. Perhaps if the States do not wish to take Goals 2000 money, as some have so stated, that the funds might go directly to the local level. We will be adding $814.5 billion in additional funds for title I Compensatory Education for the Disadvantaged Program, bringing the total to $7.3 billion. This is a very, very healthy, substantial contribution to that very important program. We will add $200 million to the Drug Free Schools Program, bringing the total in the bill to $400 million. We would have liked more, but that is a very substantial increase. And $10 million in additional funds has been added for the educational technology program, bringing the total in the bill to $35 million; $82.5 million in additional funds for vocational educational basic grants, bringing the total in back to last year's level. If the Chair will indulge me for one moment, I have an additional item which I would like to comment upon. We have added an additional $32 million in State student incentive grants program and with respect to the Perkins loans, an additional $58 million has been added, bringing the total to $158 million. We have worked this out as we have proceeded to try to get all of these items in order, Mr. President. We have offsets which we have worked out for some $1.3 billion in the sale of the U.S. Enrichment Corporation, and $92 million from the sale of oil from the strategic petroleum reserve oil, $616 million from the FAA rescission, $159 million from unobligated balances in the Pell grant program, $166 million of unused budget authority in left in the committee allocation, $200 million in year-round youth training, and $25 million in the unemployed trust fund, AFDC jobs rescissions. I want to thank my distinguished colleague, Senator Harkin, for his cooperation, and thanks especially to the staff who worked around the clock last night, and counsel, for drafting, producing this bill, really, at the very last minute. I think I am in the position now with the final additions having been made, Mr. President, to send this bill to the desk--before doing so, I want to add one addendum. That is that Senator Harkin and I have discussed our agreement, having crafted this as carefully as we have, to try to accommodate education, that this accommodates the total program and if there are any other amendments--any Senator can offer any amendment at any time--that Senator Harkin and I are unified in opposing any additional amendments. It is always easy to add money, which we would all like to do, but without offsets it is impossible to do. And we have added as much as we think can be done. So that our agreement is that this is an excellent appropriations bill for education, and we are going to stand behind it. And that is it. If any additional amendments are offered, Senator Harkin and I are unified in our determination to reject them because this is a comprehensive bill. Amendment No. 3473 to Amendment No. 3467 (Purpose: To revise provisions with respect to the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education)

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Harkin and myself, I send this second-degree amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition, reasonably briefly, to introduce legislation proposed by the Brown Commission on the reorganization of the U.S. intelligence community. The Brown Commission, which filed its report last Friday, March 1, today testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee, which I chair, and, as a courtesy, Senator Kerrey, the distinguished vice chairman of the committee, and I are introducing their legislative package. The Brown Commission came to some very important conclusions, many of which I agree with, some of which I do not agree with. I think they made an important statement on the need for continuing U.S. intelligence activities because there are still many dangers in the world, notwithstanding the demise of the Soviet Union. They have taken a step to eliminate secrecy by their recommendation on the disclosure of the total Intelligence Committee budget, a position adopted on the floor of this body several years ago but overturned in conference. The suggestion, I think, is very, very important as a start on declassification. My sense has been, in so many documents that crossed my desk as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, many are classified that need not be classified. As we have seen from the recent slush fund in the NRO, the National Reconnaissance Office, there is a need for public scrutiny, investigative reporting, so we have a better idea as to what is going on in the intelligence community. Where there is a need for secrecy--and I think the presumption ought to be in favor of secrecy, but it ought not to be absolute--if there is a need for secrecy, then let us maintain that secrecy, but let us not do so as a matter of rote, only as a matter of reason. The Brown Commission came to the conclusion that the Director of Central Intelligence needs to have his or her hand strengthened. Senator Kerrey and I agree with that. But there is considerable feeling on the Intelligence Committee that we need to go further on that particular line. When the Brown Commission says that an enormous amount of intelligence community work ought to stay in the Department of Defense, I have grave reservations about that. It is true that the Department of Defense is the customer and the Department of Defense provides a great deal of the resources. But, if you have agencies like NRO, NSA, and so much of HUMINT--human intelligence--remaining under the Department of Defense, it does not give the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency the authority that he needs to really be able to operate. One of the very serious problems in the intelligence community today is an attitudinal problem. We saw that in the Aldrich Ames matter. We have seen it in the investigation on Guatemala, where, in a hearing, one of our Members, Senator Cohen, was very blunt in an open hearing saying that the CIA had lied in withholding information from the oversight committee. Testimony was taken by the committee from a veteran of the CIA on the issue of Soviet domination in sending tainted material back to the CIA, which the CIA had known to be tainted, controlled by Soviet sources, and yet that information was passed on to the highest levels, one key bit of information going to the White House in January of 1993 for both the President and the President-elect. When questioned by the Intelligence Committee, this ranking, ex-CIA official said, ``Well, we pass it on. We know better than the customers. If we told them it was tainted, they wouldn't use it.'' Really, an incomprehensible sort of a situation. I think Director Deutch has done a very good job in his few months at the CIA. He faces a very, very difficult situation. When he concurred in testimony before the commission as to a Guatemala incident, that there had been willful failure to disclose, he later changed that view in a letter to the Intelligence Committee a few days later, showing the difficulties of being the Director of the CIA compared with a more independent role or at least a different role than the Senate Intelligence Committee has. We also heard testimony today from former Senator, former majority leader Howard Baker of a very important nature, including Senator Baker's recommendation that there be a combination of the Senate and the House Intelligence Committees, a recommendation that at least preliminarily I agree with. We will have to pursue it and have hearings. But it is more than worth considering. It is something that really is an idea whose time, probably, has come. I am just limiting the final decision until we do have a hearing process and collaborate with our counterparts in the House of Representatives. Mr. President, to reiterate, today Senator Robert Kerrey and I are introducing legislation as a courtesy to the Commission on the Roles and Capabilities of the United States Intelligence Community. In August 1994, the Senate adopted a provision establishing this Commission to ``review the efficacy and appropriateness of the activities of the United States Intelligence Community in the post-cold-war global environment.'' On March 1, 1996, the Commission submitted its report, entitled ``Preparing for the 21st Century, An Appraisal of U.S. Intelligence.'' In addition, the Commission submitted proposed legislation to implement some of its proposals. We are introducing the Commission's proposed legislative package today at their request. It is our hope that other Members of the Senate and the public at large can participate fully in the upcoming debate on this important issue. Moreover, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence intends to use this legislation, and other Commission recommendations, as a basis for additional proposals of the committee. The legislation proposed by the Commission would make a number of changes in the way the intelligence community is organized and managed. First, it replaces the current Deputy Director of Intelligence with two new Deputies: one to manage the community and one to manage the Central Intelligence Agency. In addition, it amends the National Security Act to require DCI concurrence with respect to the appointment by the Secretary of Defense of the heads of the National Security Agency [NSA], the Central Imagery Office [CIO], and the National Reconnaissance Office [NRO]. In addition, its requires consultation with the DCI by the Secretaries of Defense, State, and Energy, as well as the Director of FBI, before the appointment of the heads of the intelligence elements within these agencies. This bill also mandates that the DCI provide to the Secretary of Defense an evaluation of the performance of the heads of NSA, NRO and the proposed National Imagery and Mapping Agency. The Commission's legislation also replaces the National Intelligence Council with a National Assessments Center that would remain under the purview of the DCI but would be located outside the CIA to take advantage of a broader range of information and expertise. The most extensive aspect of this legislation is that which addresses personnel issues. The Commission is proposing new legislative authority for the most severely affected intelligence agencies, for 1 year, to ``rightsize'' their work forces to the needs of their organization. Agencies wishing to downsize by at least 10 percent over and above the current congressionally mandated levels would identify positions to be eliminated ``in order to achieve more effectively and efficiently the mission of the agencies concerned.'' The incumbents of such positions, if close to retirement, would be allowed to retire with accelerated eligibility. If not close to retirement, they would be provided generous pay and benefits to leave the service of the agency concerned, or, with the concurrence of the agency affected, exchange positions with an employee not in a position identified for elimination who was close to retirement and would be allowed to leave under the accelerated retirement provisions. This bill also creates a single ``senior executive service'' for the intelligence community under the overall management of the DCI. The Commission did an excellent job identifying the key issues and the Vice Chairman and I agree with some of their recommendations, particularly regarding institutional mechanisms for getting the policymakers more involved in identifying and prioritizing their information needs and for addressing transnational threats, ways to improve intelligence analysis, and the need to enhance accountability and oversight--to include declassifying the aggregate amount appropriated for the intelligence budget. The committee also will consider the Commission's recommendation to make the Select Committee on Intelligence a standing committee. However, I believe that the Commission did not go far enough in some areas. The changes brought about by the collapse of the Soviet Union have dramatic implications for U.S. intelligence efforts. The demands for rapid responses to diverse threats in a rapidly changing world necessitate a steamlined intelligence community and a DCI with clear lines of authority. This is lacking in the intelligence bureaucracy that emerged during the bipolar world of the cold war. As the Commission noted: ``The Intelligence Community * * * has evolved over nearly 50 years and now amounts to a confederation of separate agencies and activities with distinctly different histories, missions, and lines of command.'' Recognizing the pitfalls of decentralized intelligence--less attention devoted to non-Defense requirements, waste and duplication, the absence of objective evaluation of performance and ability to correct shortcomings, and loss of synergy--the Commission supported centralized management of the intelligence community by the DCI. The Commission concluded, however, that the DCI has all the authority needed to accomplish this objective of centralized management, if only he spent less time on CIA matters and had the budget presented to him in a clearer fashion. It is my sense that the current disincentives for intelligence to operate as a community, reduce unnecessary waste and duplication, and become more effective and efficient in meeting the Nation's needs can only be overcome by enhancing the DCI's statutory authority over the budget and administration of all nontactical intelligence activities and programs. A key issue for congressional oversight of the intelligence community is accountability. It has become increasingly clear that a single manager, the DCI, must be accountable for the success or failure of the intelligence community. Therefore, the DCI must be given the authorities he needs to carry out this responsibility. For example, the Commission recommends that the DCI concur in the appointment or recommendation of the heads of national intelligence elements within the Department of Defense, and be consulted with respect to the appointment of other senior officials within the intelligence community. We believe the DCI should recommend the appointment of all national agency heads, with concurrence from the heads of the parent organizations. Along these lines, the heads of the major collection agencies should be confirmed to that position; today they are confirmed only with respect to their promotion to the rank designated for each position. The Commission noted in its report: ``The annual budgets for U.S. intelligence organizations constitute one of the principal vehicles for managing intelligence activities, * * *. How effectively and efficiently the intelligence community operates is to a large degree a function of how these budgets are put together and how they are approved and implemented.'' I agree with this assessment and conclude that the DCI must have ultimate control over the formulation and execution of these budgets if he or she is to effectively manage the intelligence community. The Select Committee on Intelligence will consider these and other alternative proposals over the upcoming weeks as we move toward mark-up of legislation to renew and reform the U.S. intelligence community to meet the challenges of our changing world.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition, reasonably briefly, to introduce legislation proposed by the Brown Commission on the reorganization of the U.S. intelligence community. The Brown Commission, which filed its report last Friday, March 1, today testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee, which I chair, and, as a courtesy, Senator Kerrey, the distinguished vice chairman of the committee, and I are introducing their legislative package. The Brown Commission came to some very important conclusions, many of which I agree with, some of which I do not agree with. I think they made an important statement on the need for continuing U.S. intelligence activities because there are still many dangers in the world, notwithstanding the demise of the Soviet Union. They have taken a step to eliminate secrecy by their recommendation on the disclosure of the total Intelligence Committee budget, a position adopted on the floor of this body several years ago but overturned in conference. The suggestion, I think, is very, very important as a start on declassification. My sense has been, in so many documents that crossed my desk as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, many are classified that need not be classified. As we have seen from the recent slush fund in the NRO, the National Reconnaissance Office, there is a need for public scrutiny, investigative reporting, so we have a better idea as to what is going on in the intelligence community. Where there is a need for secrecy--and I think the presumption ought to be in favor of secrecy, but it ought not to be absolute--if there is a need for secrecy, then let us maintain that secrecy, but let us not do so as a matter of rote, only as a matter of reason. The Brown Commission came to the conclusion that the Director of Central Intelligence needs to have his or her hand strengthened. Senator Kerrey and I agree with that. But there is considerable feeling on the Intelligence Committee that we need to go further on that particular line. When the Brown Commission says that an enormous amount of intelligence community work ought to stay in the Department of Defense, I have grave reservations about that. It is true that the Department of Defense is the customer and the Department of Defense provides a great deal of the resources. But, if you have agencies like NRO, NSA, and so much of HUMINT--human intelligence--remaining under the Department of Defense, it does not give the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency the authority that he needs to really be able to operate. One of the very serious problems in the intelligence community today is an attitudinal problem. We saw that in the Aldrich Ames matter. We have seen it in the investigation on Guatemala, where, in a hearing, one of our Members, Senator Cohen, was very blunt in an open hearing saying that the CIA had lied in withholding information from the oversight committee. Testimony was taken by the committee from a veteran of the CIA on the issue of Soviet domination in sending tainted material back to the CIA, which the CIA had known to be tainted, controlled by Soviet sources, and yet that information was passed on to the highest levels, one key bit of information going to the White House in January of 1993 for both the President and the President-elect. When questioned by the Intelligence Committee, this ranking, ex-CIA official said, ``Well, we pass it on. We know better than the customers. If we told them it was tainted, they wouldn't use it.'' Really, an incomprehensible sort of a situation. I think Director Deutch has done a very good job in his few months at the CIA. He faces a very, very difficult situation. When he concurred in testimony before the commission as to a Guatemala incident, that there had been willful failure to disclose, he later changed that view in a letter to the Intelligence Committee a few days later, showing the difficulties of being the Director of the CIA compared with a more independent role or at least a different role than the Senate Intelligence Committee has. We also heard testimony today from former Senator, former majority leader Howard Baker of a very important nature, including Senator Baker's recommendation that there be a combination of the Senate and the House Intelligence Committees, a recommendation that at least preliminarily I agree with. We will have to pursue it and have hearings. But it is more than worth considering. It is something that really is an idea whose time, probably, has come. I am just limiting the final decision until we do have a hearing process and collaborate with our counterparts in the House of Representatives. Mr. President, to reiterate, today Senator Robert Kerrey and I are introducing legislation as a courtesy to the Commission on the Roles and Capabilities of the United States Intelligence Community. In August 1994, the Senate adopted a provision establishing this Commission to ``review the efficacy and appropriateness of the activities of the United States Intelligence Community in the post-cold-war global environment.'' On March 1, 1996, the Commission submitted its report, entitled ``Preparing for the 21st Century, An Appraisal of U.S. Intelligence.'' In addition, the Commission submitted proposed legislation to implement some of its proposals. We are introducing the Commission's proposed legislative package today at their request. It is our hope that other Members of the Senate and the public at large can participate fully in the upcoming debate on this important issue. Moreover, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence intends to use this legislation, and other Commission recommendations, as a basis for additional proposals of the committee. The legislation proposed by the Commission would make a number of changes in the way the intelligence community is organized and managed. First, it replaces the current Deputy Director of Intelligence with two new Deputies: one to manage the community and one to manage the Central Intelligence Agency. In addition, it amends the National Security Act to require DCI concurrence with respect to the appointment by the Secretary of Defense of the heads of the National Security Agency [NSA], the Central Imagery Office [CIO], and the National Reconnaissance Office [NRO]. In addition, its requires consultation with the DCI by the Secretaries of Defense, State, and Energy, as well as the Director of FBI, before the appointment of the heads of the intelligence elements within these agencies. This bill also mandates that the DCI provide to the Secretary of Defense an evaluation of the performance of the heads of NSA, NRO and the proposed National Imagery and Mapping Agency. The Commission's legislation also replaces the National Intelligence Council with a National Assessments Center that would remain under the purview of the DCI but would be located outside the CIA to take advantage of a broader range of information and expertise. The most extensive aspect of this legislation is that which addresses personnel issues. The Commission is proposing new legislative authority for the most severely affected intelligence agencies, for 1 year, to ``rightsize'' their work forces to the needs of their organization. Agencies wishing to downsize by at least 10 percent over and above the current congressionally mandated levels would identify positions to be eliminated ``in order to achieve more effectively and efficiently the mission of the agencies concerned.'' The incumbents of such positions, if close to retirement, would be allowed to retire with accelerated eligibility. If not close to retirement, they would be provided generous pay and benefits to leave the service of the agency concerned, or, with the concurrence of the agency affected, exchange positions with an employee not in a position identified for elimination who was close to retirement and would be allowed to leave under the accelerated retirement provisions. This bill also creates a single ``senior executive service'' for the intelligence community under the overall management of the DCI. The Commission did an excellent job identifying the key issues and the Vice Chairman and I agree with some of their recommendations, particularly regarding institutional mechanisms for getting the policymakers more involved in identifying and prioritizing their information needs and for addressing transnational threats, ways to improve intelligence analysis, and the need to enhance accountability and oversight--to include declassifying the aggregate amount appropriated for the intelligence budget. The committee also will consider the Commission's recommendation to make the Select Committee on Intelligence a standing committee. However, I believe that the Commission did not go far enough in some areas. The changes brought about by the collapse of the Soviet Union have dramatic implications for U.S. intelligence efforts. The demands for rapid responses to diverse threats in a rapidly changing world necessitate a steamlined intelligence community and a DCI with clear lines of authority. This is lacking in the intelligence bureaucracy that emerged during the bipolar world of the cold war. As the Commission noted: ``The Intelligence Community * * * has evolved over nearly 50 years and now amounts to a confederation of separate agencies and activities with distinctly different histories, missions, and lines of command.'' Recognizing the pitfalls of decentralized intelligence--less attention devoted to non-Defense requirements, waste and duplication, the absence of objective evaluation of performance and ability to correct shortcomings, and loss of synergy--the Commission supported centralized management of the intelligence community by the DCI. The Commission concluded, however, that the DCI has all the authority needed to accomplish this objective of centralized management, if only he spent less time on CIA matters and had the budget presented to him in a clearer fashion. It is my sense that the current disincentives for intelligence to operate as a community, reduce unnecessary waste and duplication, and become more effective and efficient in meeting the Nation's needs can only be overcome by enhancing the DCI's statutory authority over the budget and administration of all nontactical intelligence activities and programs. A key issue for congressional oversight of the intelligence community is accountability. It has become increasingly clear that a single manager, the DCI, must be accountable for the success or failure of the intelligence community. Therefore, the DCI must be given the authorities he needs to carry out this responsibility. For example, the Commission recommends that the DCI concur in the appointment or recommendation of the heads of national intelligence elements within the Department of Defense, and be consulted with respect to the appointment of other senior officials within the intelligence community. We believe the DCI should recommend the appointment of all national agency heads, with concurrence from the heads of the parent organizations. Along these lines, the heads of the major collection agencies should be confirmed to that position; today they are confirmed only with respect to their promotion to the rank designated for each position. The Commission noted in its report: ``The annual budgets for U.S. intelligence organizations constitute one of the principal vehicles for managing intelligence activities, * * *. How effectively and efficiently the intelligence community operates is to a large degree a function of how these budgets are put together and how they are approved and implemented.'' I agree with this assessment and conclude that the DCI must have ultimate control over the formulation and execution of these budgets if he or she is to effectively manage the intelligence community. The Select Committee on Intelligence will consider these and other alternative proposals over the upcoming weeks as we move toward mark-up of legislation to renew and reform the U.S. intelligence community to meet the challenges of our changing world.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the nomination of Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, USA, to be Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. I congratulate the President on his fine choice. As a strong supporter of the legislation to create the Office of National Drug Control Policy as part of the Executive Office of the President, I regret that the Office has not met my expectations. Perhaps no one should be surprised that the directors have been unable to exercise full authority over the numerous Federal agencies that have jurisdiction and responsibilities over some aspect of the far-flung war on drugs. These agencies range from the military, law enforcement agencies, public health agencies, education agencies, foreign affairs agencies, and border control agencies, among others. The Director of this Office must be skilled in the ways of the numerous bureaucracies that come within his domain. He must be able to meld these disparate agencies into a single, effective weapon reaching toward the same goal, even through widely different means. He must be able to handle competing political demands for resources and balance long-term goals with short-term needs. The most important weapon in the Director's arsenal is the President's committed support to the ending the plague of drug use in our Nation. In 1992, our Nation had achieved a remarkable record in reducing drug use over the previous 10 years. While still confronting excessive crime rates due to illegal drugs, we had made real headway. Not surprisingly, crime rates soon followed in a downward trend. I regret that this record of success has been turned around since 1993. While cocaine use has been relatively stable since then, the use of other drugs has increased significantly. Heroin use is up, as is the purity of that pernicious drug. Meanwhile, the price is down, demonstrating that heroin supplies have been increasing. This is not an unexpected problem. Under Senator Biden's leadership, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the subject of heroin trafficking in 1992. The problem has still not been satisfactorily addressed. Even more troubling is the sharp increase in juvenile drug use. Recent studies show increases in the use of all sorts of drugs among students in junior high and high schools. The sharp increase in marijuana use among these children, double between 1992 and 1994, is most troubling because of marijuana's frequent use as an entry-level drug. Students who use marijuana are 85 times more likely to use more serious drugs than those who do not. LSD, methamphetamine, and inhalant use among students is also increasing. I believe leadership from the top has been lacking for the past few years. I hope that the nomination of General McCaffrey signals a renewed commitment to fighting the war on drugs. Wars must be fought on many fronts. Even armies with overwhelming strength and superiority can lose a war to a foe that can take advantage of strategic weaknesses. While the United States has been waging its war on drugs, we have not been doing it intelligently. Too many resources have been wasted on international eradication and interdiction efforts. Not enough resources have been dedicated to the real, long-term answers to the drug problem: education, prevention, and rehabilitation. While I was a little concerned with General McCaffrey when he was nominated, because of his background in interdiction, those concerns were put to rest by the commitment he expressed both at his confirmation hearing and in his responses to questions submitted for the record to prevention and treatment programs as the key to solving America's drug problem. General McCaffrey is right. America cannot win the drug war by focusing on law enforcement. Prevention, education, rehabilitation are the real keys to winning this war. With General McCaffrey leading our efforts, I am convinced that we will do better and once again begin to make strides in our collective effort to reduce the drug problem. I also want to note my appreciation to General McCaffrey for his willingness to come to Philadelphia to view first-hand the scope of the drug problem in an American city and some of the innovative steps taken to combat that problem. I look forward to his visit soon.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is always an honor and a privilege to recognize the men and women of our Armed Forces who have diligently and faithfully maintained the security of this great Nation. We do this on Armed Forces Day and on Veteran's Day, but I believe everyone would agree that we do not recognize these individuals as frequently as their deeds would warrant. Today, I stand to recognize and pay tribute to one of the Nation's outstanding military leaders and unsung heroes, Vice Adm. Mike McConnell, Director of the National Security Agency [NSA], who will retire on March 1, 1996 after having unselfishly served his country for over 29 years. Vice Admiral McConnell's life is truly an American success story. Being the product of humble roots, he attended Furman University in Greenville, SC, also the place of his birth, and was commissioned as a line officer in the Navy in 1967. He served tours in Vietnam, Japan, the Persian Gulf, and Indian Ocean as an intelligence officer before being nominated for flag rank and being selected as the Director for Joint Staff Intelligence, J-2. In this critical assignment, he served as the senior military intelligence advisor to the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff [CJCS]. Vice Admiral McConnell's leadership skills and expertise were immediately put to use to keep the Nation's senior policymakers informed of developments during the turmoil and revolutionary changes that swept the former Soviet Union during 1990. More important, however, were his contributions to the Nation during the 1991-92 Persian Gulf crisis. Vice Admiral McConnell's service to the Nation during the gulf war, which included keeping Gen. Colin Powell [CJCS] informed of all enemy activity, was instrumental in saving U.S. and coalition lives and directly contributed to bringing about a quick and decisive victory for allied forces. Realizing that Vice Admiral McConnell had much more to offer the Nation, the President recommended him for a two-star elevation to vice admiral and nominated him to serve as Director of the National Security Agency in 1992. Vice Admiral McConnell's greatest contributions to the Nation were yet to come. Becoming NSA's 13th Director in May 1992, he committed himself to ensuring that the United States had the world's best cryptologic organization. Vice Admiral McConnell streamlined NSA's operations while ensuring that the Agency had the requisite skills and resources to meet the quickly evolving technological challenges that faced the Nation. His candor and openness with the Congress and its oversight committees helped ensure that the Nation's legislators were well informed of the Agency's operations and how taxpayer dollars were being spent. Realizing that NSA's support saves lives, he also ensured that the Agency provided matchless support to every major military operation undertaken by the United States during his tenure. Most importantly, he crafted a strategy that will enable NSA to ensure that its people will remain its most critical resource. Mr. President, I close by stating that everyone who calls this great Nation home owed a debt of gratitude to Vice Admiral McConnell. He has quietly, yet dutifully, served the Nation during four different decades and under seven different Commanders in Chief. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to know him personally can attest to his dedication, peerless integrity, and unwavering loyalty to this Nation. It is with a sense of great pride and honor that I salute Vice Adm. Mike McConnell.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on this vote I have a pair with the distinguished Senator from Kansas, Senator Dole, who is necessarily occupied in campaigning in South Carolina, where he should be. If he were present and voting, he would vote ``yea.'' If I were permitted to vote, I would vote ``nay.'' Therefore, I withhold my vote. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, February 28, 1996, in open session, to review the role of the Department of Defense Joint Requirements Oversight Council [JROC].

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to hold a hearing on the administration's views on the bipartisan proposal of the Governors' on welfare and Medicaid on Wednesday, February 28, 1996, beginning at 10 a.m. in room SD-215.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 28, 1996, at 2:15 p.m. in SD-226 to hold a nominations hearing.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 28, 1996.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 28, 1996, at 9 a.m.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a hearing on Wednesday, February 28, 1996, at 9:30 a.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing focusing on S. 917 and S. 942--White House Conference on Small Business: Paperwork Reduction and Regulatory Reform Recommendations.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 28, 1996, at 9:30 a.m. to hold an open hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 28 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing to discuss mental illness and the elderly.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information of the Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 28, 1996, at 9:30 a.m., in the Senate Dirksen Building room 106 to hold a hearing on legislation to combat economic espionage.