[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 86 (Thursday, June 19, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5963-S5978]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 87, S. 858, the 
intelligence authorization bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 858) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
     1998 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of 
     the United States Government, the Community Management 
     Account and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and 
     Disability System, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
privileges of the floor be granted to the following members of our 
staff. We have a list of them: Alfred Cumming, Melvin Dubee, Peter 
Flory, Lorenzo Goco, Joan Grimson, Andy Johnson, Taylor Lawrence, Ken 
Myers, Suzanne Spaulding, Christopher Straub, Christopher Williams, 
Peter Dorn, Bill Duhnke, Emil Francona, Art Grant, Patricia Hanback, 
Ken Johnson, Don Mitchell, Randy Schieber, Don Stone, Linda Taylor, and 
James Wolfe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the intelligence authorization bill is 
before the Senate at this time.
  This bill was unanimously voted out of the Intelligence Committee on 
June 4. It was then referred to the Senate Armed Services Committee and 
was favorably reported without amendment yesterday.
  This bill will authorize appropriations for intelligence and 
intelligence-related activities of the U.S. Government. I am pleased to 
report to the Senate today that I have worked very closely with Senator 
Kerrey, the vice chairman of the committee, in drafting this bill. We 
have crafted, Mr. President, what we believe is a bipartisan bill that 
received the full support of all Republican and all Democratic members 
of the Intelligence Committee.
  I am proud that the actions we have taken with this legislation are 
comprehensive and that we have taken some bold steps to implement four 
priorities to posture the intelligence community for the future.
  Mr. President, it is extremely fortuitous that we are bringing the 
intelligence authorization bill to the floor this week when we have 
seen a great intelligence success recently. It is not often that the 
dedicated men and women of our intelligence agencies enjoy public 
recognition for their work. They understand that. But yesterday, all 
Americans were gratified to learn of the successful apprehension of Mir 
Aimal Kansi and his transport to the United States to stand trial for 
the brutal murder of two CIA employees and the wounding of three others 
outside the CIA headquarters several years back.
  I am extremely proud of our intelligence community in their work 
here. The Kansi arrest was the result of over 4 years--4 years--of 
painstaking and dedicated investigative and intelligence work by the 
CIA, the FBI, and others.

  Together with my colleagues on the Intelligence Committee, I was 
briefed on the details of this successful mission yesterday. While I 
cannot comment on the operation itself, I can share with my colleagues, 
as Senator Kerrey would, and the American people, that it was conducted 
with great professionalism and personal courage.

[[Page S5964]]

  The success of this operation should serve as a warning to others, 
those who in the past have attacked Americans and those who might be 
contemplating such actions, that America will take action to bring the 
alleged perpetrators to justice wherever they are and whatever the 
cost.
  To the families of those who died and to those who were wounded, we 
know that this arrest cannot return your loved ones or heal your 
wounds. We hope, however, that you derive consolation from seeing the 
accused killer brought to this country for trial.
  The legislation before us today is made up of words and numbers on 
paper. As yesterday's events remind us, the work of our intelligence 
and law enforcement professionals takes place in the real world, in 
flesh and blood.
  While the cold war is, indeed, over, there are still many forces in 
the world today that threaten our national security and our citizens 
and require the constant vigilance of our intelligence community. That 
is why we have authorized a significant level of funding for the 
continued operation of the intelligence community's activities.
  I believe it would be inappropriate, Mr. President, to reveal this 
exact level of funding, not because we do not want the American people 
to know how much is invested in intelligence activities for their 
protection, but, rather, we want to protect the level of our 
investments from foreign intelligence services and leaders of rogue 
states who would analyze trends in these investments to help guide 
their decisions about when to strike with terrorism or aggression 
against their neighbors, perhaps our own citizens.
  I now would like to take a few minutes to summarize the major 
priorities and the actions we have taken with this legislation.
  We have had to face some tough choices, as all of us have in the 
Senate, in the allocation of resources to meet the critical priorities 
that have been set for the intelligence community.
  In setting the authorization level for intelligence, we have looked 
across the combined request for intelligence that is broken up into 
three major categories, and they are the National Foreign Intelligence 
Program of the Director of Central Intelligence, the Joint Military 
Intelligence Program of the Secretary of Defense, and the Tactical 
Intelligence and Related Activities Program of the military services.
  The Intelligence Authorization Act includes authorization for each of 
these categories. With this legislation, Mr. President, we continue to 
lay the groundwork for the intelligence community of the 21st century, 
one that is retooled and I believe that is right-sized.
  In putting together this authorization, the committee identified nine 
key areas that will contribute to this effort. We drafted an 
authorization bill that will better focus, we believe, the intelligence 
community's resources on these areas. I call the first five areas the 
five C's: counterterrorism, counterproliferation, counternarcotics, 
counterintelligence, and covert action. In each of these areas our bill 
includes additional resources to aggressively tackle these difficult 
missions in the world.
  We also examined four other areas with a view toward long-term 
investments that would place our intelligence agencies on a stronger 
footing as we enter the 21st century. These included: A stronger 
commitment to advanced research and development to maintain our 
technological edge; improvement in the tools and skills of our 
clandestine service personnel; new approaches to infiltrating and 
assessing hard-target countries; and enhancements to our analytical and 
information warfare capabilities.
  We have put forward a balanced recommendation for the authorization 
of a Joint Military Intelligence Program that, among other things, 
includes sensor and engine upgrades for our airborne intelligence fleet 
of RC-135's; it continues the modernization of our manned 
reconnaissance capabilities; and pushes forward with the new technology 
of unmanned aerial vehicles.
  We have also taken some bold legislative initiatives in this bill. 
One area on which the Intelligence Committee focused was the need to 
ensure that classification of information is used effectively to 
protect sensitive sources and methods or other vital national security 
interests but does not prevent the flow of information to Congress or, 
where appropriate, to the American people.
  The committee has concluded that a higher priority is needed for the 
review and for the declassification of intelligence so that families 
concerned about the murder of a loved one overseas receive vital 
information consistent with national security concerns. The Committee 
on Intelligence recently heard from the families of several marines who 
were murdered in a terrorist attack in Zona Rosa, El Salvador, in 1985. 
A common refrain in their testimony before the committee was concern 
about how little information they received from their Government 
regarding the attack and its perpetrators.

  It was from network television, for example, that at least one family 
first learned of the attack and death of their brother or son. It was 
also from television broadcasts that several families learned years 
later that the likely mastermind of the attack had been brought into 
this country through the U.S. official channels. The committee has 
pressed the executive branch to provide these families with as much 
information as possible, but 12 years is a long time to wait.
  The committee believes, however, that it is the national interests of 
the United States to provide information regarding the murder or 
kidnapping of Americans abroad to their families consistent with 
intelligence operations.
  Moreover, given the difficulty inherent in identifying all relevant 
information that might be held by different elements of the Government 
and the likely resistance to providing information that is currently 
classified, the committee believes this important responsibility must 
ultimately be vested in a Cabinet-level official.
  Therefore, the committee has adopted a provision in this bill 
requiring the Secretary of State to ensure that all appropriate actions 
are taken within the Government to promptly identify relevant 
information pertaining to incidents of violence against Americans 
overseas.
  Mr. President, the Secretary is then required to make the information 
available to families to the maximum extent possible without seriously 
jeopardizing sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other 
national security interests.
  This provision, along with others contained in this bill, will 
enhance the intelligence community's working relationship with the 
American public that it serves.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Intelligence 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998.
  Mr. President, I also want to remind my colleagues that a lot, if not 
most, of this bill is classified. But we have some security officers 
from the Intelligence Committee that are available here today, off the 
floor, to go into any aspect of the legislation that they think is 
pertinent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise to join my chairman, the 
distinguished Senator from Alabama, in offering this year's 
intelligence authorization bill. It is designed to focus the national 
intelligence agencies of the United States on today's and tomorrow's 
threats. The bill is the product of the open, bipartisan process that 
has long been the hallmark of the Select Committee on Intelligence. It 
was voted unanimously out of the committee and in accordance with 
Senate Resolution 400, the founding document of the Intelligence 
Committee, the bill was reviewed by the Committee on Armed Services.
  Before I discuss the bill, I want to say a word about the bipartisan 
process which created this legislation under Chairman Shelby's 
leadership. Unlike many other topics which we consider here each day, 
there is no Republican agenda or Democratic agenda with regard to 
intelligence, or at least none apparent to me.
  Intelligence is simply the best informed estimate of the truth about 
something. It knows no party. Every member of our committee seeks the 
most effective and most efficient methods for the collection, 
processing, analysis, production, and dissemination of

[[Page S5965]]

intelligence. Every member of our committee seeks intelligence 
collection and operations to be conducted in accordance with American 
law and American values. We certainly often disagree on which approach 
to take in a particular situation, but our disagreements are not based 
on party agendas. We are simply seeking the best performance for the 
intelligence community and the best outcome for our country. So the 
chairman and I were united in purpose as we approached this 
legislation, we came to closure on our disagreements, and we are united 
in recommending it to the full Senate.
  Most of the intelligence authorization is contained in a classified 
annex which we cannot discuss in open session but which is available to 
Members in S-407. The schedule of authorizations in that annex comprise 
the National Foreign Intelligence Program of the United States, 
together with the Intelligence Committee's markup of the Joint Military 
Intelligence Program and recommendations to the Armed Services 
Committee on Tactical Intelligence and Related Activities. The total 
amount allocated for these programs is not something I can report in 
open session, and I understand that fact will be the subject of an 
amendment. But I can say while it is a good value, it is a substantial 
amount of money.
  Before we discuss any amendment which may be introduced in that 
regard, I want to respond to the concerns of Members who may doubt the 
need for significant investment in intelligence at this stage of our 
history.
  The best intelligence is simply a necessity for the protection of our 
people and for the leadership of a nation with America's power and 
America's responsibilities. Intelligence illuminates policy. Much is 
made of the strategic crossroads the Nation finds itself at, the need 
to develop fresh strategies for the new century. You can't make good 
strategy without good intelligence. Intelligence is also the essential 
American advantage in war. Victory in battle comes, and will come in 
the future, from the convergence of three things we saw in the gulf 
war: American courage and precise American weapons linked to precise 
American intelligence. The ability to avoid conflict, to gain victory 
or attain our objectives without risking American lives, is also 
founded on the inside knowledge gained from intelligence. I can assure 
my colleagues: intelligence gives America a huge advantage in 
policymaking, in defense, and in the international aspects of law 
enforcement.
  This year's authorization bill addresses today's and tomorrow's 
threats. We have focused on international terrorism, the proliferation 
of weapons of mass destruction, and on narcotics trafficking from 
foreign countries. We have also stressed counterintelligence and the 
need for more advanced research and development. Good science is 
essential to keeping and extending our edge in intelligence, and we do 
not recommend standing pat in this key area. Our bill also reflects our 
understanding that despite the good relations we now enjoy with Russia, 
our intelligence agencies need to continue to pay attention to Russian 
nuclear warheads which still pose the greatest threat, just in terms of 
capability, to our national life and the lives of our citizens.
  The bill also has some important legislative provisions, which are 
unclassified. The most important, in my view, is the requirement for 
the executive branch to make crystal clear to every employee of the 
national intelligence community that he or she has the right to 
disclose classified information to the appropriate congressional 
oversight committee, if the employee believes the information provided 
gives evidence of wrongdoing. This provision, like the rest of this 
bill, does not have a partisan basis. We simply intend it to preserve 
the ability of Congress to perform oversight, which cannot be done 
without information. In most circumstances, I hope an employee who felt 
the obligation to report something classified to Congress would first 
approach his superiors and get their views on how the information 
should be presented. But in some circumstances, such as when the 
employee suspects his superiors of complicity in the alleged 
wrongdoing, the employee should not fear to communicate with the 
appropriate committee member or cleared staff. The administration does 
not agree, and believes they have greater authority, by virtue of 
Executive Order 12356, to control the release of executive branch 
classified information to Congress. But, given the guarantees in the 
bill for responsible handling of the received classified information by 
Congress, I would hope every Member of the Senate would support 
Congress' right to be informed.
  This legislation also provides subpoena powers for the CIA inspector 
general to obtain documentary evidence in support of investigations. 
The CIA IG is the only inspector general in any of the major national 
security agencies who lacks this power, and its absence has adversely 
affected investigations. We have made clear in the bill that subpoena 
power will remain strictly in the service of the IG for investigative 
purposes, and will not be used by or in behalf of any other element of 
the CIA.
  The Intelligence Committee in 1989 originated the legislation 
creating the CIA inspector general, and in the past year the Audit Team 
of the Select Committee on Intelligence conducted a review of the 
performance of the IG and his office. The confidence of the oversight 
committees and ultimately the public is essential if the IG is to do 
his job properly. If I may quote from the report accompanying the bill, 
``the [IG] office has increased the level of trust and respect from 
within the Agency, the Oversight Committees, and the Intelligence 
Community.''
  Mr. President, the distinguished chairman has described other 
highlights of the bill, one of which we learned from the Khamisiya 
nerve gas experience and is intended to ensure intelligence better 
supports our deployed forces, and another which enables Americans whose 
family members are victims of murder or kidnapping overseas to be kept 
better informed by their Government. These provisions, like others I 
have already described, are the result of investigations or hearings by 
the committee and represent, as does the entire bill, the committee's 
reasoned view of what is necessary to keep the Nation safe and informed 
in today's world.
  Finally, I would like to call the Senate's attention to the arrest 
and return to the United States, this past Tuesday, of Mir Aimal Kansi 
for the murder of two CIA employees and wounding of three others at the 
gate to CIA headquarters several years ago. The CIA and FBI pursued 
this man to the ends of the Earth, just as former Director James 
Woolsey promised at the time of the crime. Mr. President, this is a 
great triumph for U.S. intelligence and law enforcement, working in a 
harmony which could not have been imagined just a few years ago. All 
involved in this mission have my deepest respect and congratulations.
  The Kansi case underlines the quality and dedication of the 
remarkable people who work for the American people in our intelligence 
organizations. They are selfless and patriotic, many of them risk their 
safety for the sake of our country, and many more are denied the 
gratification of the ego that comes from being able to talk freely 
about their professional accomplishments. A lot of our talk here is 
meaningless without the commitment of people like these to actually do 
something or learn something for America's benefit. The annual 
authorization bill debate is a chance to thank them, and I do.
  Mr. President, I look forward to the Senate's deliberations on this 
bill and I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to support S. 858, the fiscal year 
1998 intelligence authorization bill. The legislation comes to the 
floor having been reported out of the Select Committee on Intelligence 
earlier this month and approved, on referral, by the Armed Services 
Committee. As a member of both committees, I believe S. 858 is a 
responsible, bipartisan bill which reflects our mutual oversight 
concerns and policy priorities. While there may be some areas in which 
the two committees disagree, I want to praise Intelligence Committee 
Chairman Richard Shelby and Vice Chairman Bob Kerrey for their efforts 
in seeking a consensus with the Armed Services Committee on the funding 
and legislative provisions contained in the bill.

[[Page S5966]]

  Most notably, S. 858 reflects our shared concern that intelligence 
community activities must reflect the new, post-cold-war era threats 
and challenges to U.S. security. Additionally, there is strong 
agreement between the two committees and the administration that 
continued emphasis must be given to improving the collection and 
distribution of timely intelligence to the warfighter in the cockpit, 
in the tank, aboard ship, and in the command post. One of the 
overriding lessons learned from the Persian Gulf war was that high 
quality tactical intelligence, if provided to the warfighter in a 
prompt fashion can save American lives and carry the day on the field 
of battle. Improving this qualitative advantage enjoyed by our Armed 
Forces must remain a top priority in my view and I am pleased to see it 
reflected in S. 858.
  Also included in the intelligence authorization bill is a provision I 
sponsored asking that the Director of Central Intelligence examine the 
full range of threats to the United States from weapons of mass 
destruction, not just the threat from ballistic and cruise missile 
weapons, which formed the basis of the last intelligence estimate of 
this kind in 1995. The intelligence threat assessment required by S. 
858 will be submitted to Congress annually beginning February 15 of 
next year and provide us with our first comprehensive understanding of 
the emerging ``nontraditional'' threat facing our Nation, including the 
ability of terrorist groups and hostile governments to produce and 
deliver nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons into the United 
States, the probability that such an attack would come from ballistic 
missile, cruise missile, or any other means of delivery, and the 
vulnerability of the United States to such an attack. One month after 
the completion of the intelligence community's threat estimate, the 
President is required to submit a report to Congress identifying how 
Federal funds are dedicated to defending against this full range of 
threats. Linking the probability of a certain type of attack using a 
weapon of mass destruction, such as a terrorist chemical attack versus 
a Russian ballistic missile attack, with the level of funds being spent 
to defend against such a threat will be extremely helpful, in my view, 
as the Senate debates national defense spending priorities in the 
upcoming years.
  In closing, I again want to commend the leadership of the Senate 
Intelligence Committee for its willingness to work with the Armed 
Services Committee on the numerous issues of mutual concern, and I look 
forward to continued cooperation between the two committees as we move 
into conference with the House of Representatives on our respective 
bills.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Minnesota.


                           Amendment No. 415

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 415.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following: ``It is the 
     sense of the Senate that any tax legislation enacted by the 
     Congress this year should meet a standard of fairness in its 
     distributional impact on upper, middle and lower income 
     taxpayers, and that any such legislation should not 
     disproportionately benefit the highest income taxpayers.''

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, we did not 
formally agree to a time agreement. I know that the policy committees 
are meeting. I think I will take 20 minutes rather than 15, because I 
do not think we will have a vote before 2 o'clock, in any case.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, there will be other amendments, at least one 
other amendment, before final passage. So that will take us well beyond 
that. If the Senator would not object, we would probably like to stack 
his vote, if that would be agreeable?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to the Chair, 15 minutes is what we had talked 
about. I would be pleased to do that. I just remind my colleague, I do 
not think there will be any votes until 2, in any case.
  Mr. KERREY. We will need a consent agreement to set time for the 
votes.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the distinguished 
Senator from Minnesota have from now until 2 o'clock on his amendment; 
at the end of that time, no vote will occur until we have an 
opportunity to work out maybe back-to-back votes. The other one 
amendment I think we can work a time agreement on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me just read this amendment because 
I want colleagues to know exactly what it says. I want them to know 
what they are voting on, because if there is going to be strong support 
for this amendment, that's fine. It is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, 
but people are on record. This will be a test that I want to use, as a 
Senator, to look at what we are doing vis-a-vis tax policy. This 
amendment says:

       It is the sense of the Senate that any tax legislation 
     enacted by the Congress this year should meet a standard of 
     fairness in its distributional impact on upper--

  Mr. KERREY. I wonder if the Senator will yield for a unanimous 
consent to set the other vote? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the only amendments in order to S. 858 be an amendment offered by 
Senator Torricelli regarding funding, an amendment by Senator Wellstone 
regarding tax fairness, and, further, no other amendments be in order, 
that the amendment offered by Senator Torricelli have 40 minutes 
equally divided, and that the vote on these two amendments be stacked 
and begin at 2:45.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, might I 
inquire if it would be part of this agreement to have no second-degree 
amendments? Is that correct?
  Mr. KERREY. No second-degree amendments on either amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I shall go on reading, then, this 
amendment, that whatever we do by way of this tax legislation ``should 
meet a standard of fairness in its distributional impact on upper, 
middle and lower income taxpayers, and that any such legislation should 
not disproportionately benefit the highest income taxpayers.''
  Mr. President, I want colleagues to listen to this because it is my 
sense that there is going to be strong support for this. I will do 
everything I can as a Senator to hold my colleagues accountable for 
their support.
  Understand, I say to Democrats and Republicans alike, that if you 
vote for this, then what we need to do is look at what we are now 
discussing in the Finance Committee and what came out of the Ways and 
Means Committee. Look at the Finance Committee tax bill--it is quite 
unbelievable--if you are at the top 1 percent of the population, making 
over $400,000 a year, you are going to get a break of a little bit over 
$7,000 a year. If you are in the top 20 percent of the population, and 
have an income of $200,000 a year and over, you will get a break of 
about $3,706. $200,000 and over, you get $3,706; $100,000 to $200,000 
--we are not middle class yet, I remind my colleagues--you get $1,440; 
$75,000 to $100,000, you get $804.

  Now look what happens when we get to incomes of $75,000 and below, 
and more so when we get into the $40,000 to $50,000, $30,000 to 
$40,000, and $15,000 to $30,000 range. For these hard-pressed people--
what do you get? A pittance. Low income families get a dollar a week, 
if that.
  Mr. President, we are talking about a tax bill that provides benefits 
to people in inverse relationship to need. The less you need, the more 
you get; the more you need, the more hard pressed you are, the more you 
are trying to provide for your family, trying to make a decent living 
and raise your children successfully, the less you get. This is a 
Robin-Hood-in-reverse policy.
  If I could turn to the next chart: here we see that the House bill is 
even

[[Page S5967]]

worse, really, skewed in the favor of higher income Americans. The top 
1 percent get $10,000; and then you get down to $40,000 to $50,000, 
$30,000 to 40,000--they get $167, or $300, or some similar tiny amount.
  So, Mr. President, we are giving $10,000 and $12,000 per year tax 
breaks to upper-income and wealthy people, and then hard-pressed people 
in the States of Wyoming or Minnesota are getting practically nothing.
  I say to my colleagues, this is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, and 
maybe people don't want to debate it and maybe people don't want to 
vote against it. But if you vote for it and then you go and vote for 
this tax bill, you are going to have to come out with some other data 
that shows that this tax bill, in fact, is based on some standard of 
fairness. I haven't seen one shred of evidence to that effect.
  The next chart, Mr. President, reflects on the issue of deficit 
reduction. The chart is from the Joint Tax Committee and the Center on 
Budget and Policy Priorities--the first two charts were from the 
Department of the Treasury--and shows how the tax cuts are backloaded. 
Look at this. We are talking about an erosion of revenue between 2000 
and 2017, to the tune of $950 billion.
  Mr. President, I have said it before on the floor of the Senate, 
there is an old Yiddish proverb: you can't dance at two weddings at the 
same time. You can't be talking about deficit reduction and say you 
want to invest in education and opportunities for all our citizens and 
you are for the children and at the same time vote for tax cuts that 
are going to explode the deficit, and the worst thing of all is provide 
the lion's share of the benefits to those people who are the wealthiest 
citizens. Maybe this is the difference between the Democrats and the 
Republicans. If so, I am pleased to have that division reflected in 
this vote on this sense-of-the-Senate amendment.
  There has been a lot of discussion about higher education. This is 
near and dear to my heart, because I really do believe that what we do 
here today has so much to do with whether or not our children or our 
grandchildren will do well in life and have access to a higher 
education. Again, coming over from the House Ways and Means Committee, 
Chairman Archer's higher education tax cuts are unbelievable. If you 
are in the top 1 percent of income earners--just take a look--you are 
getting up to $600 by way of a break. If you earn around $59,000, you 
are getting about $100. If you earn around $36,000, you may get $50, 
and below that, below $30,000 a year, you don't get anything at all.
  What kind of tax breaks are we talking about? I am telling you 
something, this tax bill makes the best argument for campaign finance 
reform I have ever seen since I have been here in the Senate. If you 
are a heavy hitter and you are well heeled and you are a player and you 
are over there in that tax committee room and you are lobbying every 
day, you are sure going to get your piece. But I have news for you 
working Americans. I am bringing this amendment to the floor today 
because it is a wake-up call. You are getting the short end of the 
stick.
  We have been talking about affordable higher education. I must say, 
even the President's proposal is far better than what we are looking at 
right now.
  I was speaking at Inver Hills Community College last Friday at 
graduation and talking to the president. It is wonderful. I love going 
to those graduations, because when you go to the community college 
graduations, always, at least one time, someone will yell out, ``Way to 
go, grandma.'' These are different students. They are not 19 years old. 
Many are older, many are hard pressed, many come from families with 
incomes under $30,000.
  If the tax credit isn't refundable, they are not going to get 
anything. So let's stop making claims that just do not hold up, and 
let's not brag about a tax bill that provides a huge amount of 
assistance to those people least in need. When it comes to those at the 
very top, this bill provides great breaks. When it comes to middle 
income, this bill gives a little bit, and when it comes to working 
families, low- and moderate-income families, this bill gives nothing. 
And this is called fairness?
  So, I say to my colleagues, if you vote for this amendment, then I 
certainly hope that you will not then separate your votes on the 
reconciliation bill next week from the words to which you have ascribed 
today. Some people sort of just pooh-pooh sense-of-the-Senate 
amendments, and they say it is just a wish list, it doesn't mean 
anything. I say you are on record.

  We have an important piece of legislation out here. I made this a 
sense-of-the-Senate. I am not talking all afternoon on this, but, by 
golly, we are focused on tax policy, and we are seeing a bill moving 
through these committees which is absolutely outrageous. It is no 
wonder that people in cafes in Minnesota and around the country think 
there has been a hostile takeover of the Government process. When they 
find out what this bill does and who benefits and who doesn't, they are 
going to be furious, and they are going to say the same thing they are 
saying already, which is, ``Boy, I tell you something, we're locked 
out. Those folks in the Congress, they do a heck of a good job of 
responding to the well heeled, but they sure don't do a very good job 
of responding to our families.''
  According to the Treasury Department, on June 17, just look at where 
we are heading right over here in the Senate Finance Committee. Sixty-
five-point-five percent of the benefits of these tax proposals go to 
earners in the top 20 percent; 10 percent goes to those making $50,000 
or under; 5 percent goes to families making between $40,000 and 
$50,000; 3 percent goes to those making between $30,000 and $40,000; 
and 1.8 percent goes to families between $15,000 and $30,000 a year. I 
am actually surprised that they even got 1.8 percent. And the bottom of 
wage-earners? Nothing. If you earn below $15,000 a year, you get 
nothing.
  Mr. President, again I say to my colleagues, if you vote for this 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment, that is great, but I don't think you are 
going to then be able to vote for what is coming out of the Finance 
Committee or what is coming out of the Ways and Means Committee, unless 
you come out here with other data, unless you come out here with 
another analysis as to what the distributional effects are.
  If this sense-of-the-Senate is adopted--and I think it will be, or I 
hope it will be--then I will come out with a tougher amendment on the 
Department of Defense bill. We are going to have some discussion today 
on the floor of the Senate about tax policy. I cannot believe the 
silence on the floor of the Senate. We are going to have a debate about 
this. This isn't just going to move through next week quickly and 
silently, as we do with reconciliation bills. People in the country 
have a right to know how this is going to affect them, who exactly is 
making the decisions, who exactly is going to benefit, and who exactly 
gets the short end of the stick. Working families, you get the short 
end of the stick. Don't you for a moment let anybody tell you that you 
and your children are getting a heck of a lot of assistance. You are 
not. But, by golly, if you are wealthy and at the very top, you are 
going to get a lot by way of assistance.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a very fine piece by 
Robert Kuttner in the Washington Post today be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, June 19, 1997]

                   Contending Over Capital Gains Cuts

                          (By Robert Kuttner)

       For two decades, cutting the capital gains tax has been an 
     object of almost religious fervor for the Republican right. 
     Now the grail seems at last within reach. Only, with the 
     stock market setting new records, the timing is a bit off.
       The Republican plan would cut the top tax rate on capital 
     gains from 28 percent to 18 percent and phase in indexing of 
     gains for inflation. These and other tax changes would reduce 
     government's revenue by hundreds of billions of dollars over 
     10 years. Given bipartisan obsession with budget balance, the 
     revenue cuts would translate directly into cuts in public 
     outlay--in medical care and countless other public programs.
       Supposedly, capital gains cuts will help the economy grow. 
     With investment offering greater after-tax rewards, people 
     will save more, invest more and be freer to shift assets to 
     more efficient investments. All of this in turn will make the 
     economy more productive.
       But here the timing doesn't compute. The stock market, of 
     course, is setting records. It's hard to argue with a 
     straight face that

[[Page S5968]]

     the prospect of paying capital gains tax is deterring much 
     productive investment.
       Venture capital markets are booming, and new issues are 
     having little difficulty fetching buyers. The overall 
     strength of the American economy and the healthy dollar make 
     U.S. capital markets a magnet for the entire world.
       Another old chestnut is that inflation overstates the real 
     capital gain. True, but in a low-inflation environment, the 
     effect of inflation on capital gains is not significant. 
     Stock values have doubled in two years, while inflation has 
     gone up less than 6 percent. Taxpayers with serious money in 
     the market are crying all the way to the bank.
       Moreover, if there is a real problem with U.S. capital 
     markets, it is too much trading and not enough patient 
     investment for the long term. Capital gains cuts would make 
     the stock market even more of a traders' market. Indeed, the 
     present capital gains tax is one of the few forces keeping 
     the stock market from becoming a pure casino.
       Also, nearly half of the holdings in financial markets are 
     tax-exempt. This includes life insurance portfolios, pension 
     funds, IRAs and Keoughs. Capital gains cuts do nothing to 
     influence these institutional Investors, because they can 
     already trade stocks to their hearts' content and pay no 
     capital gains tax.
       One other factor makes this a dubious crusade--the Federal 
     Reserve Board. If the capital-gains cutters have a near-
     messianic zeal, the Fed has an equally religious conviction 
     that the economy can only grow so fast.
       The economy's supposed speed limit is about 2.5 percent per 
     year. Whenever the growth rate exceeds that pace, the Fed 
     scents inflation and raises interest rates. So even if 
     capital gains cuts did allow more investment and higher 
     potential growth, you could count on the Fed to nip it in the 
     bud.
       The real issue here is not growth but political power--who 
     gets what from government policy. The Republican majority in 
     Congress wants to reward its well-heeled friends.
       Despite misleading claims of ``people's capitalism,'' 
     ownership of financial wealth remains astonishingly 
     concentrated. Roughly 40 percent of stocks and bonds are held 
     by the richest one percent of Americans. The next 5 percent 
     own most of the rest. These are the people benefiting from 
     the present uneven boom, and these people will profit from 
     capital gains cuts.
       The stocks and bonds held on behalf of non-wealthy 
     Americans--mostly in pension plans, annuities and life 
     insurance savings--are already tax-exempt. So a capital gains 
     cut will do nothing for them, unless you think it will boost 
     the value of stocks generally. But a lot of smart people 
     think the market is already dangerously overvalued.
       The Democrats, rather belatedly, are weighing in with an 
     alternative tax plan. It will cost roughly the same $85 
     billion in net tax cuts over the next five years (and much 
     less in the long run), but it will allocate the cuts quite 
     differently.
       The Democrats' plan offers only modest capital gains cuts 
     and spends more on tax relief for families with incomes below 
     $75,000 through a child-tax credit and tax breaks for 
     tuition. It we are to cut taxes at all, given the quest for 
     budget balance, these priorites make much more sense.
       In today's economy, stockholders are doing just fine, thank 
     you. It's other Americans who are struggling. The case that 
     capital gains relief would trickle down and broaden 
     prosperity just hasn't been made.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I will read a brief 
relevant section:

       The Republican plan would cut the top tax rate on capital 
     gains from 28 percent to 18 percent and phase in indexing of 
     gains for inflation.

  I believe that is not going to be done on the Senate side, and that 
is an improvement.

       These and other tax changes would reduce Government's 
     revenue by hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years. 
     Given bipartisan obsession with budget balance, the revenue 
     cuts would translate directly into cuts in public outlay.

  That is another way we can do it with the erosion of revenue, either 
the deficit explodes or we make further cuts in health care and 
education.

       Supposedly, capital gains cuts will help the economy grow. 
     With investment offering greater after-tax rewards, people 
     will save more, invest more and be freer to shift assets to 
     more efficient investments. All this in turn will make the 
     economy more productive.

  But, Mr. President, it is not like people's stockholdings are not 
doing well.

       Stock values have doubled in two years, while inflation has 
     gone up less than 6 percent. Taxpayers with serious money in 
     the market are crying all the way to the bank.

  Who are we trying to help here? Wall Street investors and bondholders 
are doing just great. They are doing fine. I think the real issue is 
political power. The real issue is political power. Who has the say? 
Who are the well-heeled? Who are the folks who are well represented? 
But working families and their children get the short end of the stick.
  Mr. President, I have a June 16 piece in the New York Times by David 
Rosenbaum. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, June 16, 1997]

               Tax Bill's Complexities Often Aid Wealthy

                        (By David E. Rosenbaum)

       Washington--``Beset with invisible boomerangs.''
       That's the way Justice Robert Jackson of the Supreme Court 
     described the hidden dangers of tax laws in a 1952 opinion.
       The bill the House Ways and Means Committee approved last 
     week is a good illustration of what Jackson was talking 
     about.
       Take, for example, a provision in the bill that would 
     exempt from capital-gains taxation up to $500,000 of the 
     profits a couple made from the sale of their home but would 
     set the exemption for a single person at $250,000.
       That caused great mirth among several of the lawyers, 
     lobbyists and accountants who spent breaks in the committee's 
     sessions last week trying to puzzle out unintended 
     consequences in the bill the way other people might work on 
     crosswords.
       An accountant said he had an elderly client outside 
     Philadelphia who had a house worth more than $1 million and 
     who he knew would look for a marriage of convenience if the 
     $500,000 exemption became law.
       ``I can just see this guy finding himself an old lady 
     somewhere and getting married and selling his house and then 
     dumping her like a sack of potatoes,'' the accountant said.
       A lawyer thought of a corollary: ``Say your husband's on 
     his death bed and you've got this house with a big capital 
     gain. You'd better sell it quick before he dies.''
       These people were mostly joking. But they also saw a more 
     serious consequence that was being overlooked in the section 
     of the bill dealing with capital gains, which are profits 
     from the sale of investments.
       The bill would lower the top capital-gains tax rate, now 28 
     percent, to 10 percent for taxpayers with incomes below 
     $41,200 and to 20 percent for those who were better off.
       The main beneficiaries of the 10 percent rate, the tax 
     experts said, would not be middle-income taxpayers selling a 
     modest amount of mutual funds. Instead, it would be wealthy 
     families who were selling stock to pay for their children's 
     tuition. They could cut the taxes in half by giving their 
     appreciated stock to their children and having the children 
     sell it, rather than selling it themselves and paying the 
     higher tax because of their higher income.
       That is not the only instance in which the bill would give 
     a better tax break to affluent people sending their children 
     to college than it would give to taxpayers who were less well 
     off.
       The bill would allow parents to put money into an 
     educational investment account, similar to an individual 
     retirement account, in which interest and dividends would 
     accumulate tax-free. The money could then be withdrawn to pay 
     college expenses.
       The Democratic staff of the Ways and Means Committee 
     calculated that a family that could afford to invest $50,000 
     in such an account when a child was 8 years old would save 
     almost $4,000 a year in taxes on a $22,500 annual tuition 
     bill when the child reached college age.
       Under the bill, a family that could not afford to put aside 
     so much money in advance and had to meet the college costs 
     from income and student loans would get a tax break of only 
     $1,500 a year, and that would be available only for the first 
     two years of college.
       If all this sounds complicated, it is. That is somewhat 
     embarrassing to the principal author of the bill, Rep. Bill 
     Archer, R-Texas, who is chairman of the Ways and Means 
     Committee and who has made a career of complaining about how 
     complicated the income-tax system is.
       Archer commented on the paradox in his opening statement to 
     the committee on Thursday evening. Holding up the 422-page 
     bill, he said, ``When you look at a tax bill that's this 
     thick, you know it's not going to simplify things for the 
     taxpayer.''
       Then to make sure no one thought he had changed his 
     stripes, he quickly added, ``This in no way hinders my 
     ultimate goal of abolishing the income-tax system.''
       The most ``fabulously complicated'' part of the 
     legislation, said Jeffery Yablon, a prominent tax lawyer in 
     Washington, is the provision that would allow investors to 
     adjust the value of their capital gains to take account of 
     inflation, a process known in tax lingo as indexation.
       Here is how it would work. Say an investor bought stock for 
     $100, held it for three years and then sold it for $110, and 
     assume the inflation in overall prices in the economy was a 
     total of 9 percent for the three years.
       Under the current law the investor would report a capital 
     gain of $10. But if the law allowed indexation, the taxable 
     gain would be only $1.
       Sounds simple enough. But here is the problem. Many people 
     buy stock with borrowed money and take a deduction for the 
     interest they pay on their loan. So if the investor borrowed 
     the money at an interest rate of 4 percent, his tax statement 
     would show a loss of $3 ($1 profit minus $4 deduction), 
     although he had actually made a profit on his investment even 
     after adjusting for inflation.


[[Page S5969]]


  Mr. WELLSTONE. I quote:

       The bill would lower the top capital-gains tax rate, now 28 
     percent, to 10 percent for taxpayers with incomes below 
     $41,200 and to 20 percent for those who were better off.
       The main beneficiaries of the 10 percent rate, the tax 
     experts said, would not be middle-income taxpayers selling a 
     modest amount of mutual funds. Instead, it would be wealthy 
     families who were selling stock to pay for their children's 
     tuition. They could cut the taxes in half by giving their 
     appreciated stock to their children and having the children 
     sell it, rather than selling it themselves and paying the 
     higher tax because of their higher income.
       That is not the only instance in which the bill would give 
     a better tax break to affluent people sending their children 
     to college than it would give to taxpayers who were less well 
     off.

  Well, Mr. President, this happens every way you look at it.
  The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities talks about the children's 
tax credit. I don't know what is going to happen. I understand Chairman 
Archer and the Republicans are changing their minds. Good. The more we 
speak out, the better chance we have of other people changing their 
minds. That is why I am on the floor today.
  The Senate did an analysis based on data from the Congressional 
Budget Office that show that the child credit, given where it was 
heading, where EITC is essentially used to offset it, that there are 28 
million children, 2 of every 5, who will receive no child tax credit 
because their incomes would not be high enough to qualify. Because 
their incomes won't be high enough to qualify? Unbelievable.
  You have a tax bill that is going to give a child tax credit, all in 
the name of helping families, but not if you are in the bottom 40 
percent of the population. Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable.
  Let me just simply go back to this amendment, because I have been 
here now long enough to realize what I think is happening, and I just 
want to be very honest with my colleagues, all of whom I appreciate 
whether or not we agree or disagree on other things. I bring this 
amendment to the floor to essentially sound the alarm, because we have 
tax bills that are absolutely unbelievable. There is no standard of 
fairness.
  Ninety-nine percent of the people in any cafe in any of our States 
would say, ``What? No, can't be; it can't be. We were thinking about 
tax cuts that would provide us with some relief. You mean, this is 
going to people with incomes over $400,000 a year and over $200,000 a 
year, and they get the lion's share of the benefits and hardly anything 
comes to us, those of us where both are working and we are making 
$35,000 a year? Say what? No, can't be, Senator Wellstone.''
  Well, it is.
  Or families are going to be saying in Minnesota, ``Wait a minute, I 
heard higher education was going to be more affordable. Wait a minute, 
you are saying to me now basically folks with IRA's are going to get 
the breaks and the breaks will mainly go to high-income people? And, by 
the way, the tax credits aren't going to be refundable, so if we are 
making $28,000 a year we'll be cut out?'' I meet these students all the 
time at community colleges. You have a woman or a man, she is 40, he is 
45, they are going back to school, but their income is $28,000. They 
are not going to get a thing, hardly a thing. People are going to say, 
``What? That's not what we understood was going to be the case.''
  So, I ask my colleagues to bring out other data, other charts--I 
would be delighted for them to do so. I have about 2 minutes remaining. 
Let me read this again--

       It is the sense of the Senate that any tax legislation 
     enacted--

  Just for staff who are listening or colleagues listening--

     by the Congress this year should meet a standard of fairness 
     in its distributional impact on upper, middle and 
     lower income taxpayers * * *

  By the way, I don't think anybody in the Congress will say middle-
income taxpayers are $250,000 a year. We all know what we are talking 
about here:

     and that any such legislation should not disproportionately 
     benefit the highest income taxpayers.

  If my colleagues vote for this sense-of-the-Senate amendment, I will 
be delighted. Then I will come back with a slightly tougher one on the 
next bill, and if I get a strong vote for that, I will be delighted as 
well. But I want to tell you something, sense of the Senate or not, you 
are on record. You are on record and people in the country are going to 
be taking a close look at what we are about, and they are going to ask 
the question whether this tax relief is going to us or is it basically 
going to the same folks that all too often are the ones who always get 
the lion's share of the benefits.
  This is all about political power, who decides, who benefits and who 
sacrifices. The folks who are benefiting are at the very top of the 
economic ladder, and the folks who are really paying the price are the 
people most in need of the assistance.
  So, we will have this vote later on. Maybe people may vote against 
it, in which case you don't agree with this proposition. If you vote 
for it, don't think that your vote is just symbolic. I will have a 
tougher amendment on the next bill and all next week, any way I can, I 
will be talking about what you are on record for and how that is 
opposed to what is coming out of these tax committees.
  Mr. President, I assume Democrats are going to have an alternative, 
in which case it will be good, because then people will say there are 
differences between the parties and those differences matter.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think that this debate is healthy for 
the body politic. People don't want to see us bitterly angry, but they 
do want to see us genuinely debate issues that directly affect them and 
their children and their families. I am telling you something, this 
amendment, that is what this amendment is all about. These tax bills, 
that is what they should be about.
  I thank my colleagues for their courtesy.
  Mr. SHELBY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately 
following the disposition of the two amendments that we have been 
talking about, that the bill be read a third time, and the Senate 
proceed to a vote on passage of S. 858, as amended, if amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Also, for the information of all Senators, this now means 
that all Members can expect up to three consecutive rollcall votes 
beginning around 2:45 this afternoon.
  Mr. President, the committee has received the Congressional Budget 
Office cost estimate for S. 858. CBO found that the public bill would 
not affect direct spending or receipts in 1998; thus, pay-as-you-go 
procedures would not apply to it. In addition, the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform act [UMRA] excludes from application of the act legislative 
provisions that are necessary for the national security. CBO determined 
that all of the provisions of this bill either fit within that 
exclusion or do not contain intergovernmental mandates as defined by 
UMRA.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Congressional Budget 
Office cost estimate for Senate bill 858, the intelligence 
authorization bill, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                    Washington, DC, June 16, 1997.
     Hon. Richard C. Shelby,
     Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 858, the 
     Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Dawn 
     Sauter.
           Sincerely,
                                                  June E. O'Neill,
                                                         Director.
       Enclosure.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate


      s. 858--intelligence authorization act for fiscal year 1998

       Summary: S. 858 would authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 1998 for intelligence activities of the United States 
     government, the Community Management Account, and the Central 
     Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System 
     (CIARDS).

[[Page S5970]]

       This estimate addresses only the unclassified portion of 
     the bill. On that limited basis, CBO estimates that enacting 
     S. 858 would result in additional spending of $91 million 
     over the 1998-2002 period, assuming appropriation of the 
     authorized amounts. The unclassified portion of the bill 
     would not affect direct spending or receipts in 1998; thus 
     pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply to it. The Unfunded 
     Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) excludes from application of the 
     act legislative provisions that are necessary for the 
     national security. CBO has determined that all of the 
     provisions of this bill either fit within that exclusion or 
     do not contain intergovernmental mandates as defined by UMRA.
       Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
     budgetary effect of S. 858 is shown in the following table. 
     CBO was unable to obtain the necessary information to 
     estimate the costs for the entire bill because parts are 
     classified at a level above clearances held by CBO employees. 
     The estimated costs, therefore, reflect only the costs of the 
     unclassified portion of the bill.
       The bill would authorize appropriations of $91 million for 
     the Community Management Account and $197 million for CIARDS. 
     The funding for CIARDS would cover retirement costs 
     attributable to military service and various unfunded 
     liabilities. The payment to CIARDS is considered mandatory, 
     and the authorization under this bill would be the same as 
     assumed in the CBO baseline.
       For purposes of this estimate, CBO assumed that S. 858 will 
     be enacted by October 1, 1997, and that the full amounts 
     authorized will be appropriated for fiscal year 1998. Outlays 
     are estimated according to historical spending patterns for 
     intelligence programs.

                [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 1997   1998   1999   2000   2001   2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
 
Spending under current law:
    Estimated authorization       102      0      0      0      0      0
     level \1\................
    Estimated outlays.........     95     46     22      5      0      0
Proposed changes:
    Estimated authorization         0     91      0      0      0      0
     level....................
    Estimated outlays.........      0     50     23     14      5      0
Spending under S. 858:
    Estimated authorization       102     91      0      0      0      0
     level \1\................
    Estimated outlays.........     95     96     45     19      5     0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1997 level is the amount appropriated for that year.
 
Note: The costs of this legislation would fall within budget function
  050 (national defense).

       Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
       Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: The Unfunded 
     Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) excludes from application of the 
     act legislative provisions that are necessary for the 
     national security. CBO has determined that all of the 
     provisions of this bill either fit within that exclusion or 
     do not contain intergovernmental mandates as defined by UMRA.
       Estimate prepared by: Federal Cost: Dawn Sauter; Impact on 
     State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Pepper Santalucia; 
     Impact on the Private Sector: Eric Labs.
       Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant 
     Director for Budget Analysis.

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I will be brief on the Wellstone 
amendment.
  I think just about everybody in the Senate would agree that whatever 
tax bill we enact this year should meet a standard of fairness in the 
distributional impact on all Americans, on upper, middle and lower 
taxpayers, as he is talking about. I have no quarrel with the 
amendment, the Wellstone amendment. I do not believe it belongs on the 
Senate authorization bill dealing with intelligence activities, but I 
have no opposition to the content of it or the substance of it.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his courtesy 
and inform him I appreciate him. And after the vote, I think I will ask 
unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be immediately notified of 
the result of our vote in the Senate.
  Mr. SHELBY. They will be notified.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
Jersey is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 416

(Purpose: To require an unclassified statement of the aggregate amount 
             of appropriations for intelligence activities)

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I have an amendment filed at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli], for himself, 
     Mr. Specter, Mr. Kerrey, and Mr. Bumpers, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 416.

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 14, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:

     SEC. 309. REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMITTAL OF BUDGET INFORMATION ON 
                   INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Submittal With Annual Budget.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the President shall include in each 
     budget for a fiscal year submittal under section 1105 of 
     title 31, United States Code, the following information:
       (1) The aggregate amount appropriated during the current 
     fiscal year on all intelligence and intelligence-related 
     activities of the United States Government.
       (2) The aggregate amount requested in such budget for the 
     fiscal year covered by the budget for all intelligence and 
     intelligence-related activities of the United States 
     Government.
       (b) Form of Submittal.--The President shall submit the 
     information required under subsection (a) in unclassified 
     form.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, the Senate is faced with an issue as 
old as the Republic itself. It is the continuing debate between the 
public's right to know and the Government's need to retain information 
only unto itself. It is an old argument, but it is one that has largely 
been settled through time.
  We have decided as a country that the best source of good judgment in 
this Nation remains with the people and that they should be trusted 
with the public welfare in having a maximum exposure to the facts and 
judgments that govern our society.
  Indeed, it was that wisdom which led to the first amendment to the 
Constitution itself, and equally significantly as it led to article I, 
section 9, clause 7 of the Constitution, which reads:

       * * * a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and 
     Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time 
     to time.

  For a long time, Mr. President, despite these national ambitions, 
this consistency with our greatest national principles, we as a 
Congress determined this was not possible because of the dangers of 
world war and the continuing struggle in the cold war.
  It was the judgment of this Congress that even the total aggregate 
amount of expenditures for our intelligence agencies, including the 
Central Intelligence Agency, would remain private and not be published 
and shared with the people.
  The end of the cold war has raised this question anew. Not only for 
the intelligence community, but indeed for all of the U.S. Government. 
And most of this Government has responded appropriately.
  The Defense Department began to share information about programs it 
was developing, technologies that it possessed. Weapons hitherto 
unknown were shared with the press and the public. And perhaps 
predictably that is why since 1980, according to the bipartisan Brown 
Commission, defense expenditures of the United States in real terms 
have declined by 4 percent.
  Accountability by the people themselves led this Congress to adjust 
our national priorities to deal with the new emerging security 
situation internationally. No doubt, an equal reflection of the fact 
the intelligence community retained privacy of its budget is that the 
bipartisan Brown Commission found that since 1980 the intelligence 
community's budget, in adjusted terms, increased by 80 percent.
  Mr. President, what we are facing today in honest debate can no 
longer be concluded to be whether or not adversaries of the United 
States will gain information about our intentions and abilities of our 
intelligence community, because our adversaries have neither the means 
to respond nor probably the ability in all cases to understand the 
operations of our intelligence community. The only people being 
shielded from this information are not adversaries, but the taxpayers 
of the United States.
  Indeed, general accountings, in estimates, of American intelligence 
expenditures appear in all of our major newspapers. Only the exact 
aggregate numbers are denied, and not denied to adversaries; they are 
denied to the people of this country who need to make informed 
judgments as voters, as taxpayers about our national priorities.
  So I rise today with an amendment that this Senate has considered 
before. It is simply this: To publish, not the details of the CIA 
expenditures, not to reveal their programs, to share no numbers and no 
estimates on any technology, any element of spending of the 
intelligence community but one, the total aggregate amount of money 
spent in the U.S. Government for the Central Intelligence Agency.
  This one number would allow the American people, as an informed 
electorate, to make their judgments on a

[[Page S5971]]

comparative basis about whether or not, as compared to defense, social 
programs, foreign assistance, and the intelligence community, this 
Congress is making the right judgments.
  And yet, it will be argued that our adversaries would have this 
information and use it for their own purposes. I understood that 
argument when we were concerned that the Russians, the Soviet Union 
with all of its capabilities, as our principal adversary would have 
this information and could adjust their own intelligence programs to 
respond.
  There is no Soviet Union; and the cold war has ended. The decline and 
change of our national defense expenditures give the best testament to 
the fact that this Senate has accepted that fact.
  Now we face new adversaries, terrorist organizations, a list of 
pariah states from North Korea to Libya, to Iraq and Iran. And so the 
question begs itself, what if these nations possessed this one 
aggregate number, of what value would it be to them? By most press 
estimates, total expenditures of the Central Intelligence Agency are 
not only more than the intelligence expenditures of each of those 
countries, it is more than all those countries combined.
  Indeed, the United States, by most published estimates, spends more 
on its intelligence community than the gross national product of every 
one of these potential adversaries of the United States. And so for 
those who will argue that we cannot share this information with the 
American people, I ask, what is it North Korea would do with this 
information or Libya or Iran? What possible change would they have in 
their own programs or their own expenditures? They have not the means 
to respond or to change.
  I repeat in my argument, Mr. President, as I began. There is only one 
people on this Earth that need this information to make important 
judgments about their future who are being shielded from it, and it is 
the people of the United States.
  Mr. President, if this argument seems familiar to Members of the 
Senate, it is because it is not new. This Senate voted on this question 
in 1991, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution in 1992, and again in 1993.
  Indeed, most Members of the Senate who in a matter of moments will 
vote on this question have already voted in previous years to share 
this information with the American people.
  Eighty members of the House of Representatives have cosponsored 
legislation to do so.
  The Federation of American Scientists have gone to Federal court to 
compel its release on constitutional principles.
  But perhaps most significantly, the President of the United States 
himself, our Commander in Chief, who has the ultimate authority for the 
security of the United States, suggested if the Congress would concur, 
he would release this information.
  This Senate on previous occasions has confirmed for the directorship 
for the Central Intelligence Agency Admiral Turner, Mr. Gates, Mr. 
Deutch. Each of those CIA Directors themselves have argued that 
concealing this information serves no purpose and it should be shared 
with the people.
  This Congress has disagreed on this issue before. And so a bipartisan 
commission, chaired by former Secretary of Defense Brown, and by our 
former Senate colleague, Senator Rudman, addressed this question in 
their own report. And they urged the public release of this 
information.
  To my colleagues, when you have voted on this question previously, 
when Directors of the Central Intelligence Agency, the President of the 
United States, and a commission charged for this very purpose argues 
that this single individual aggregate amount of spending should be 
released, by what possible logic do we continue to shield the American 
people from these facts?
  But if, Mr. President, in their individual judgment my colleagues are 
still convinced that because of the danger of these new pariah states 
and the rise of international terrorism, this expenditure must be 
concealed from our people, I urge them to consider the fact that we are 
also not the first of the allied nations to face this judgment.
  The British Parliament has had this debate. And Britain decided its 
people should share with this information. The Canadian Parliament, the 
Australian Parliament, and perhaps most significant, the Israeli 
Knesset--no nation on Earth is faced with the threat of terrorism more 
than Israel--but they have decided, in spite of the fact that their 
program cannot conceivably have our capabilities nor the relative 
advantage versus their adversaries as we face as opposed to our own, 
they share this information with the people of Israel.
  We remain the exception.
  Fifty years since the Second World War when a judgment was made that 
for national security, a judgment appropriately made for national 
security, that this information was best concealed, we retain this last 
relic of the cold war.
  Mr. President, this is a national policy to conceal the gross 
expenditures of the Central Intelligence Agency that has lost its 
rationale. It is time for this Senate once again, as it has on three 
previous occasions, to vote to allow the sharing of this information 
with the American people. But we do so not because we believe it is a 
compromise with national security that has become necessary, but 
because indeed many of us believe it would enhance our national 
security.
  Perhaps most significantly in the Brown report was a conclusion that, 
in the commission's words, ``Most intelligence agencies seem to lack a 
resource strategy apart from what is reflected in the President's 6-
year budget projection. Indeed, until the intelligence community 
reforms its budget process, it is poorly positioned to implement 
strategies.''
  Efficiency, accountability, proper judgments for national security, 
like all other aspects of the governance of the United States, are best 
made under the careful scrutiny of the people themselves. National 
security is not only the exception, it may be the best rule. It is the 
lives of the people of this country themselves--from terrorism and from 
a new group of potential adversaries--that we are charged with 
protecting. Allow the people of the United States to participate in 
this judgment.
  I urge my colleagues, once again, as you have done on several 
previous occasions, to join with the previous leadership of the Central 
Intelligence Agency in concurrence with the commission report that you 
commissioned to be done, and allow this single number, this one gross 
expenditure of the Central Intelligence Agency's budget, to be released 
to the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Torricelli amendment. 
I oppose the public disclosure of the overall level of intelligence 
funding as proposed by the amendment offered by the Senator from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. President, it does not, I repeat, it does not take an act of 
Congress to declassify the top line of the intelligence budget as this 
amendment would do if adopted. The President of the United States has 
always had and has today the authority to disclose this figure and has 
always chosen to keep it classified.
  Determining classification is the responsibility and is the duty of 
the Chief Executive of the United States, the President, who is also, 
as we know, the Commander in Chief. Presidents Truman through Clinton 
have determined this figure is to remain classified, and I believe we 
should not overrule that judgment.
  The purpose of maintaining a premier intelligence capability is to 
save lives and to prevent and, if we get in them, win wars. The 
foundation of an effective intelligence capability, as we all know, is 
secrecy. Secrecy protects not only the information that we collect, but 
also the brave people that put themselves at risk to do the collection 
of it. We are an open and a free society that generally abhors secret 
dealings by our Government. But in the case of intelligence collection 
and analysis, secrecy, I believe, is absolutely necessary.
  Some of my colleagues argue that the American people have a right to 
know how much of their money is being spent to defend their Nation's 
security through intelligence-gathering operations. I assert today 
that, through its elected officials, the public interests are being 
effectively served.

[[Page S5972]]

As U.S. Senators, all of us we have been elected to represent the 
interests of our constituents and to act on their behalf. Therefore, 
the American people do know, in a sense, how much we spend on national 
security because their elected representatives know. As on many other 
issues, Mr. President, our constituents have a voice, and it speaks 
through the Senators and Representatives and the President of the 
United States.
  Some of my colleagues will argue that disclosing the total budget 
amount will instill public confidence and enable the American people to 
know what portion of the Federal budget is dedicated to intelligence 
activities. It appears there is general agreement that the details of 
the intelligence budget should remain classified, however. I believe 
that the total budget figure is of no use to anyone but to those who 
wish to do us harm.
  For example, what do the numbers tell our adversaries or potential 
adversaries in the world? In any given year, perhaps, not a great deal. 
But while watching the changes in the budget over time, and using 
information gathered by their own intelligence activities, 
sophisticated analysts can indeed learn a great deal.
  Trend analysis, Mr. President, you are familiar with, is a technique 
that our own analysts use to make predictions and to reach conclusions. 
There are hostile foreign intelligence agencies all over the world that 
are focused solely on gathering every bit of information that they can 
about our own intelligence-gathering operations and our capabilities. 
Their ultimate goal is to exploit weaknesses and to deny access and to 
deceive our own intelligence collectors. Denial and deception is 
already a serious concern for the intelligence community, and providing 
our enemies or potential enemies with any insight as to what we spend 
on intelligence will only make it worse, not better.
  Others will argue that the total budget figure is already in the 
public domain, and we should just acknowledge it. Mr. President, we 
never, never confirm or deny classified information that may have been 
published somewhere or spoken by someone. Classified information, as 
you well know, remains classified even if it wrongly makes it into the 
public domain.
  We will also, Mr. President, hear from those who say disclosure is 
required by the statement and account clause of the Constitution, 
article 1, section 9, clause 7. Mr. President, I assert today that the 
current practice is fully consistent with the Constitution, and it 
carries forward a tradition of secret expenditures dating back more 
than 200 years. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court of the United 
States observed in the U.S. versus Richardson case, ``Historical 
analysis of clause 7 suggests that it was intended to permit secrecy in 
operations.''
  Further, Mr. President, the figure is available to all Members of 
Congress, the U.S. Senate and, the U.S. House to review.
  As I reviewed the debate on this topic, I found a statement by my 
colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, in 1993, with which I 
totally agree, and which is appropriate today. Senator Chafee, the 
distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, said, disclosing the top line 
budget figure would only ``frustrate a curious public and politicize 
the intelligence budget.''
  He pointed out further, ``What many proponents of disclosure want to 
do is to put a bull's-eye on the intelligence budget and hold it up as 
a target for public ridicule, recognizing full well that we cannot 
engage in a meaningful public debate regarding intelligence programs.''
  I assure you, Mr. President, once the overall number has been 
released, there would be efforts to amend the overall funding for 
intelligence in open session. I do not believe it would be good for the 
Senate, the House, or the American people. Otherwise, I believe 
President Clinton and Presidents before him would have already 
declassified the number which they have the right to do.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I first thank my colleagues who have 
joined me in this effort today, most significantly, Senator Specter of 
Pennsylvania, who has led this effort previously and makes this a 
genuinely bipartisan effort to share this information with the American 
people, Senator Bumpers of Arkansas, who has argued so passionately on 
this cause previously, and, of course, the ranking member of the 
intelligence committee, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska.
  Mr. President, I know that many Government agencies would have liked 
the right to keep the information of their expenditures on a 
proprietary basis. This logic must have occurred to the Defense 
Department. Indeed, it was difficult for the Defense Department, at the 
end of the cold war, to begin to share some of the programs, exhibit 
some of the technology and the assets it possessed that previously had 
remained secret.
  This Congress and the leadership of this Government made a judgment 
that the people could not make the proper decisions about their elected 
representatives and we could not make the proper judgments for them 
without complete access to information. I want to remind my colleagues, 
we have faced this issue previously in 3 different years since the end 
of the cold war, and on each of those occasions this Senate has voted, 
even if contained in other legislation, either by law or by a sense of 
the Senate, to permit the publishing of this one single number. If we 
fail to do so today, it will be a change in the position of this 
Senate. It will be an inconsistency by a majority of Senators who 
served in this institution in those previous years.
  By what logic would we now change our minds? Because it will endanger 
an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency? On what basis and by 
what theory would anyone be endangered because they knew a total amount 
of money spent by the intelligence community? Because an adversary will 
change their plans, initiate a new program, compete with the 
intelligence community of the United States--when I have demonstrated 
that every and each potential adversary of the United States has a 
gross national product that is, according to published reports, smaller 
than the gross expenditures of the American intelligence communities?
  Mr. President, I conclude as I began: There is only one group of 
people who have real need of this information upon which to make 
decisions, and it is the taxpayers of the United States. This is the 
last cloud of secrecy necessitated by war, cold war and struggle, that 
should be removed by this Government. My colleagues have decided to do 
so before, but we have been frustrated in conference, and our will has 
not been done. It can be done now.
  I urge an affirmative vote to allow the public release of the 
aggregate expenditures of the United States intelligence community, a 
single number, published each year. The people of our country can make 
a good and accurate judgment.
  I want to thank again Senator Specter, Senator Bumpers, and Senator 
Kerrey for joining me in this and each of my colleagues who have voted 
previously on a majority basis to allow its release.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise in the strongest possible opposition 
to the Torricelli amendment. My grandmother used to say there are some 
things that are better not to know, and that is the case with certain 
highly classified information that is important to the national 
security of American citizens. One of those things is how much money is 
spent on our intelligence activities, information which is very useful 
to our opponents, and not particularly useful to the average American 
taxpayer.
  The public's right to know, as has been pointed out by the 
distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee, is adequately 
protected by our elected representatives. That is why we have special 
provisions of law, Mr. President, that call for certain Members of 
Congress only--not every Member of Congress, but only certain Members 
of Congress--to be apprised of certain operations and certain details 
of our intelligence operations.
  For example, in an operation such as that which nabbed the terrorist 
Mir Aimal Kansi just last Saturday, it was known to only a handful of 
our elected representatives because that is what the law provides. The 
American people did not need to know that, and, indeed,

[[Page S5973]]

it would have jeopardized American lives, the people who were involved 
in this operation, had there been more widespread knowledge. There is a 
reason why this information is not public.
  The irony is, Mr. President, that revealing the top-line number, the 
aggregate amount we spend on intelligence, would be of very little use 
to the average American debating whether or not it is the proper 
number, but it means a great deal to clever potential adversaries who 
do trend analysis and extrapolation from year to year to see whether or 
not there are changes and who try to determine whether or not we have, 
therefore, made certain commitments to our intelligence that would be 
of interest to. So on the one hand it doesn't help the average American 
much. On the other hand, it could easily help opponents a great deal. 
Unfortunately, there is no way for us to defend that budget. If the top 
line is $10 billion, or $100 billion, or $50 billion, just 
hypothetically, whatever number, somebody might say, ``I don't think 
that is a good number.'' How do you defend that number without getting 
into all of the sensitive, classified information that comprises the 
budget? So it is not a good idea.

  No other friend or ally of the United States reveals the amount that 
it spends on intelligence. It would set a terrible, terrible precedent, 
Mr. President, because right after the aggregate budget was revealed, 
everybody would realize that, to the average American, that doesn't say 
much and so the calls would be very quick for more information. ``You 
gave us the top line; how about the categories on which it is spent?"
  This is a slippery slope, Mr. President. Reveal the first number and 
it will be just a matter of minutes before there will be a call to 
reveal more information. As a matter of fact, our colleague from New 
Jersey, in effect, just did that by saying that ``in the area of 
defense spending we have determined that we need complete access to 
information,'' to use his quotation. And the defense budget is known. 
Yes, the defense budget is known, but there is still much about defense 
that is highly classified. That is the way it needs to be.
  Another argument of our friend from New Jersey is that there have 
been leaks and there is no reason to continue to withhold the 
information. Of course, the proper policy when there are leaks is to 
find them. They can be very damaging to our national security. The 
answer is not to, therefore, let all the information out. The object is 
to try to prevent those leaks from causing more harm.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, if this is such a good idea, one 
wonders why previous Presidents haven't done it. They have the 
authority and power to do it, and they have not done it because they 
know full well that it is not the right thing to do. I just suggest 
that it would be highly, highly dangerous to the national security 
interests of the United States, to the lives of Americans who literally 
put their lives on the line to work operations that are very dangerous 
that the public never hears about, because, obviously, they can't, or 
it would compromise the sources and methods by which we obtain 
information. It would be very dangerous to these people if our 
potential adversaries could soon begin to pick apart the budget and 
learn what kind of capabilities we have to use against them.
  I urge, in the strongest possible terms, that we vote against the 
Torricelli amendment and urge my colleagues, when we have that vote, to 
do so.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I yield to my friend from Ohio as much 
time as he might need.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
amendment proposed by my colleague and friend from New Jersey. It is an 
amendment that would disclose the total intelligence budget.
  Mr. President, intelligence budgets and programs are kept secret for 
a good reason: to keep our enemies--and, yes, we still do have 
enemies--from knowing how much we are spending on intelligence and, of 
course, on what programs. Mr. President, disclosure of the total budget 
might well be the first step leading to a demand to disclose individual 
agency budgets, as my colleague from Arizona has just stated, and 
inevitably to disclose specific programs.
  Mr. President, the reality is that a single budget figure with no 
additional detail or disclosure of capabilities does not, in my view, 
provide a sufficient basis for a meaningful public debate. Therefore, I 
think there would be pressure to disclose more. But such a disclosure 
would only help our enemies. It would provide them with vital 
information on our Nation's resource allocations. It would undermine 
our commitment to early warning for our policymakers, as well as our 
ability to provide our military the intelligence information that is 
essential to making them the best in the world.
  President Clinton--as the chairman of the committee has already 
pointed out--has the authority to disclose the total budget on his own. 
However, he has not done so. President Clinton joins every President 
since Harry Truman in making that same policy decision--that it is not 
in the best interest of this country to disclose this dollar figure.
  Mr. President, the practice of keeping the budget secret is fully 
consistent with the Constitution, and it carries forward a tradition of 
secret expenditures dating back more than 200 years. The Supreme Court 
observed in U.S. versus Richardson that ``historical analysis of clause 
7 suggests that it was intended to permit secrecy in operations.'' It 
is clear, Mr. President, the Constitution provides for this secrecy.
  This intelligence figure is available to all Senators, as is the 
entire classified schedule of authorizations and classified annex to 
the Intelligence Authorization Act. Members of the Intelligence 
Committee, members of the Armed Services Committee, members of the 
Appropriations Committees in both the House and the Senate do provide 
vigorous oversight of the intelligence community and of its budget. 
There is full scrutiny through the people's elected representatives, 
while at the same time providing protection for intelligence 
operations.
  Mr. President, to disclose the budget would break with tradition. I 
believe it would help our enemies and it would not provide the public 
with any meaningful information. For these reasons, Mr. President, I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  I believe that little can be gained, but much can be lost over time 
by this type of disclosure.
  I thank the Chair and my colleague from Alabama.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I yield the remainder of our time to Senator Specter 
of Pennsylvania, and I thank him for his leadership.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I support public disclosure of the 
overall funding law and would start with the language of the 
Constitution, which I believe supports that disclosure:

       No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in 
     Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular 
     Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all 
     public Money shall be published from time to time.

  On the base, that calls for public disclosure. I know some courts 
have limited that interpretation to what Congress says. But I believe, 
as a constitutional matter, disclosure ought to be made. And beyond 
that, as a public policy matter for the Congress, disclosure ought to 
be made.
  In the 8 years I served on the Senate Intelligence Committee--2 years 
as chairman--it seemed to me that much too much is kept secret, and 
disclosing the overall amount is not to disclose the programs. We have 
seen terrorism as the instrumentally for political purposes, replacing 
war. Intelligence is very important to fight terrorism, and I believe 
if the American people knew how much money was being spent on 
intelligence gathering, the people would want more spent and not less.
  Just yesterday, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee took 
issue with the way the Central Intelligence Agency is being run, saying 
it is not being run effectively. Much too much is being kept secret, 
Mr. President. We can protect important sources and methods and means 
from being disclosed, but still have a great deal more candor for the 
American people about what is going on in intelligence. When we look at 
the budget of the CIA or the

[[Page S5974]]

FBI for domestic intelligence, those are items which ought to be 
subject to public debate. The public ought to be demanding more. The 
public ought to be receiving more. As a very basic first step, it is my 
sense--having some familiarity with the Intelligence Committee 
operations and overall budget--that the funding level ought to be 
disclosed.
  I thank the Chair and inquire how much of the 2\1/2\ minutes is left.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 19 seconds remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. I leave that to the sponsor of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I believe I have consumed all of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 seconds.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. The 10 seconds I have remaining I yield to the 
Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by Senator 
Torricelli to declassify the aggregate intelligence budget. This body 
has been on record a number of times over the years as supporting 
disclosure of the intelligence budget total. Last year the Intelligence 
Authorization Act as reported by the SSCI and adopted by the Senate 
required the President to disclose in his annual budget submission to 
Congress each year the total amount appropriated for all intelligence 
and intelligence-related activities, that is, the total of NFIP, JMIP, 
and TIARA, in the current fiscal year and the total amount requested 
for the next fiscal year. As has happened on each previous occasion 
that the Senate has voted in favor of disclosure, the provision in last 
year's bill ultimately was dropped in conference with the House.
  The Senate's support for this position dates back at least to the 
Church committee, in 1976. The following year the Select Committee on 
Intelligence was established and the members of that committee voted in 
1977 for public disclosure of the aggregate intelligence budget. In the 
years since, the Senate has regularly voted to disclose the aggregate 
amount of intelligence spending.
  Senators will recall that in 1994 we chartered a commission to 
conduct a comprehensive review of American intelligence. Part of the 
statutory mandate of this commission was to study the issue of budget 
disclosure and resolve it once and for all. The Aspin-Brown Commission 
unanimously recommended that the total amounts appropriated and 
requested be disclosed. Senators Warner and Rudman and other 
traditional opponents agreed. In fact, Senator Rudman and former 
Defense Secretary Brown would declassify the CIA budget as well in 
order to show it is only a fraction of the overall budget.
  Public disclosure of total budget amount for intelligence is 
symbolically important: it sends a message that intelligence is a 
legitimate and open governmental function. It helps to instill public 
confidence and enables the American people to know what proportion of 
the entire Federal budget is spent on intelligence, as compared with 
other functions. Moreover, there is an argument that disclosure is 
constitutionally required by the statement and account clause of the 
Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 7), which provides that ``A 
regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all 
public money shall be published from time to time.''
  Disclosure of the aggregate budget amount will not harm our national 
security. Disclosure of the top-line number is not sufficient to alert 
adversaries to deployment of new systems; spending on new systems 
doesn't occur in 1 year, it's stretched out over a number of years. 
There has been no history of conspicuous spikes in intelligence 
spending. It is interesting to note that our major allies disclose 
their intelligence budgets. The United Kingdom recently decided to 
disclose the total budgets for MI-5 and MI-6.
  The reality is that this number is already in the public domain in 
approximate terms. The intelligence budget is already widely reported 
in the press. A congressional committee released the actual numbers for 
all agencies a couple of years ago by mistake. Even efforts to talk 
around the budget numbers, by using percentages, for example, instead 
of actual numbers, have given industrious reporters and analysts 
sufficient information to extrapolate the dollar figures. Knowledge of 
the top-line does not give an adversary useful information about 
intelligence targets, sources, or methods.
  Nor has the de facto disclosure of the budget total taken us down the 
so-called slippery slope of more detailed disclosures. In fact, I 
believe this disclosure will actually strengthen our ability to protect 
vital national secrets by bolstering the credibility of our 
classification decisions--officially revealing the budget total tells 
the American public that we are using classification to protect vital 
national secrets, not to conceal information that might be inconvenient 
to defend. And I think it would not be difficult to defend the size of 
the intelligence budget, given the complex world we live in today.
  For these reasons, Mr. President, I support this amendment and urge 
my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHELBY. I will try to be brief.
  Mr. President, as former Director Woolsey of the CIA once said, ``It 
is impossible to conduct a meaningful debate on the effects of such 
amendments without explaining the component parts of the intelligence 
budget.''
  Think about that a minute. How much is spent for the CIA? How much is 
spent for signals intelligence? How much are we spending on satellites, 
and so on?
  It is that discussion which creates the likelihood of disclosure of 
sensitive intelligence information that would be of benefit to our 
adversaries.
  Mr. President, there are many opportunities to debate and discuss the 
details of the intelligence budget among the Intelligence, Armed 
Services, and Appropriations Committees. We all do this. This is not a 
topic that goes unexamined by the people's representatives in the 
Senate or the House.
  Mr. President, the Senate Intelligence Committee was established to 
ensure vigorous oversight of our intelligence activities. I believe 
myself that the committee faithfully represents the American people. 
Our goal is to maintain a robust intelligence capability while ensuring 
that our intelligence activities are conducted in accordance with 
American values and constitutional principles.
  The members of the committee take their responsibilities very 
seriously, and I pledge to the American people that we will continue to 
represent the best interests of this Nation.
  Mr. President, our intelligence capabilities are a critical national 
asset and, as chairman of the committee, I will not support an effort 
to disclose classified information when there is no compelling argument 
to do so. Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the 
Torricelli amendment.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 415

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Wellstone 
amendment to S. 858.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] 
is necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] is 
absent due to a death in the family.
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 107 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond

[[Page S5975]]


     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Daschle
       
  The amendment (No. 415) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next two 
votes be reduced to 10 minutes time limit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, also, I would like to include in that 
consent that there be 2 minutes of debate before each vote, equally 
divided, so an explanation can be given of those.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that members of 
the Finance Committee be immediately informed of the result of this 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing no objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 416

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment No. 416, 
offered by the Senator from New Jersey. We have 2 minutes for debate. 
The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Specter and Senator 
Kerrey for joining me in this effort. We asked the Senate to do that 
which you have done three times before, that which three previous 
Directors of the Central Intelligence Agency have endorsed, that which 
the Brown Commission, in a bipartisan review of this issue, has 
endorsed--that is to share with the American people and the Members of 
this Congress the total aggregate amount spent on intelligence 
activities by the U.S. Government. No details, no programs, no internal 
facts--one aggregate number, so the people can make their own judgments 
whether the direction and the amount of intelligence spending is 
appropriate and proper for the U.S. Government. I urge an affirmative 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I oppose the public disclosure of the 
overall level of intelligence funding as proposed by the Torricelli 
amendment. It does not take an act of Congress to declassify the top 
line of intelligence spending. The President of the United States has 
always had the authority to disclose this figure, and has always chosen 
to keep it classified. Determining the classification is the 
responsibility and, I believe, the duty of the Chief Executive and 
Commander in Chief. Presidents Truman through Clinton have determined 
that this figure is to remain classified and we should not overrule 
that judgment.
  I yield the remainder of my time. I ask my colleagues to vote no on 
the Torricelli amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] 
is necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] is 
absent due to a death in the family.
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 108 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--56

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
       Daschle
       
  The amendment (No. 416) was rejected.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was rejected.
  Mr. THOMAS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third and was read the 
third time.
  Mr. SHELBY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the agreement, there will now be 2 
minutes for debate equally divided.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I yield back the minute that was allotted 
to us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama has yielded back his 
time.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I yield back whatever time is on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, the 
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass? The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] 
is necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] is 
absent due to a death in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 109 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter

[[Page S5976]]


     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Harkin
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Daschle
       
  The bill (S. 858), as amended, was passed, as follows:

                                 S. 858

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                    TITLE I--INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 102. Classified schedule of authorizations.
Sec. 103. Personnel ceiling adjustments.
Sec. 104. Community Management Account.

 TITLE II--CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM

Sec. 201. Authorization of appropriations.

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Increase in employee compensation and benefits authorized by 
              law.
Sec. 302. Restriction on conduct of intelligence activities.
Sec. 303. Detail of intelligence community personnel.
Sec. 304. Extension of application of sanctions laws to intelligence 
              activities.
Sec. 305. Administrative location of the Office of the Director of 
              Central Intelligence.
Sec. 306. Encouragement of disclosure of certain information to 
              Congress.
Sec. 307. Provision of information on violent crimes against United 
              States citizens abroad to victims and victims' families.
Sec. 308. Standards for spelling of foreign names and places and for 
              use of geographic coordinates.
Sec. 309. Sense of the Senate.

                 TITLE IV--CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

Sec. 401. Multiyear leasing authority.
Sec. 402. Subpoena authority for the Inspector General of the Central 
              Intelligence Agency.

         TITLE V--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

Sec. 501. Academic degrees in intelligence.
Sec. 502. Funding for infrastructure and quality of life improvements 
              at Menwith Hill and Bad Aibling stations.
Sec. 503. Misuse of National Reconnaissance Office name, initials, or 
              seal.
                    TITLE I--INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 
     year 1998 for the conduct of the intelligence and 
     intelligence-related activities of the following elements of 
     the United States Government:
       (1) The Central Intelligence Agency.
       (2) The Department of Defense.
       (3) The Defense Intelligence Agency.
       (4) The National Security Agency.
       (5) The Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, 
     and the Department of the Air Force.
       (6) The Department of State.
       (7) The Department of the Treasury.
       (8) The Department of Energy.
       (9) The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
       (10) The Drug Enforcement Administration.
       (11) The National Reconnaissance Office.
       (12) The National Imagery and Mapping Agency.

      SEC. 102. CLASSIFIED SCHEDULE OF AUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) Specifications of Amounts and Personnel Ceilings.--The 
     amounts authorized to be appropriated under section 101, and 
     the authorized personnel ceilings as of September 30, 1998, 
     for the conduct of the intelligence and intelligence-related 
     activities of the elements listed in such section, are those 
     specified in the classified Schedule of Authorizations 
     prepared to accompany the conference report on the bill __ of 
     the One Hundred Fifth Congress.
       (b) Availability of Classified Schedule of 
     Authorizations.--The Schedule of Authorizations shall be made 
     available to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives and to the President. The 
     President shall provide for suitable distribution of the 
     Schedule, or of appropriate portions of the Schedule, within 
     the Executive Branch.

     SEC. 103. PERSONNEL CEILING ADJUSTMENTS.

       (a) Authority for Adjustments.--With the approval of the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director 
     of Central Intelligence may authorize employment of civilian 
     personnel in excess of the number authorized for fiscal year 
     1998 under section 102 when the Director of Central 
     Intelligence determines that such action is necessary to the 
     performance of important intelligence functions, except that 
     the number of personnel employed in excess of the number 
     authorized under such section may not, for any element of the 
     intelligence community, exceed two percent of the number of 
     civilian personnel authorized under such section for such 
     element.
       (b) Notice to Intelligence Committees.--The Director of 
     Central Intelligence shall promptly notify the Permanent 
     Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of 
     the Senate whenever the Director exercises the authority 
     granted by this section.

     SEC. 104. COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) Authorization.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     for the Community Management Account of the Director of 
     Central Intelligence for fiscal year 1998 the sum of 
     $90,580,000.
       (2) Availability of certain funds.--Within such amount, 
     funds identified in the classified Schedule of Authorizations 
     referred to in section 102(a) for the Advanced Research and 
     Development Committee and the Environmental Intelligence and 
     Applications Program shall remain available until September 
     30, 1999.
       (b) Authorized Personnel Levels.--The elements within the 
     Community Management Account of the Director of Central 
     Intelligence are authorized a total of 278 full-time 
     personnel as of September 30, 1998. Personnel serving in such 
     elements may be permanent employees of the Community 
     Management Account element or personnel detailed from other 
     elements of the United States Government.
       (c) Classified Authorizations.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--In addition to 
     amounts authorized to be appropriated for the Community 
     Management Account by subsection (a), there is also 
     authorized to be appropriated for the Community Management 
     Account for fiscal year 1998 such additional amounts as are 
     specified in the classified Schedule of Authorizations 
     referred to in section 102(a).
       (2) Authorization of personnel.--In addition to the 
     personnel authorized by subsection (b) for elements of the 
     Community Management Account as of September 30, 1998, there 
     is hereby authorized such additional personnel for such 
     elements as of that date as is specified in the classified 
     Schedule of Authorizations.
       (3) Construction.--Authorizations in the classified 
     Schedule of Authorizations may not be construed to increase 
     authorizations of appropriations or personnel for the 
     Community Management Account except to the extent specified 
     in the applicable paragraph of this subsection.
       (d) Reimbursement.--During fiscal year 1998, any officer or 
     employee of the United States or member of the Armed Forces 
     who is detailed to the staff of an element within the 
     Community Management Account from another element of the 
     United States Government shall be detailed on a reimbursable 
     basis, except that any such officer, employee, or member may 
     be detailed on a non-reimbursable basis for a period of less 
     than one year for the performance of temporary functions as 
     required by the Director of Central Intelligence.
 TITLE II--CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM

     SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated for the Central 
     Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability Fund for fiscal 
     year 1998 the sum of $196,900,000.
                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 301. INCREASE IN EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS 
                   AUTHORIZED BY LAW.

       Appropriations authorized by this Act for salary, pay, 
     retirement, and other benefits for Federal employees may be 
     increased by such additional or supplemental amounts as may 
     be necessary for increases in such compensation or benefits 
     authorized by law.

     SEC. 302. RESTRICTION ON CONDUCT OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES.

       The authorization of appropriations by this Act shall not 
     be deemed to constitute authority for the conduct of any 
     intelligence activity which is not otherwise authorized by 
     the Constitution or the laws of the United States.

     SEC. 303. DETAIL OF INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY PERSONNEL.

       (a) Detail.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the head of a department or agency having jurisdiction 
     over an element in the intelligence community or the head of 
     an element of the intelligence community may detail any 
     employee of the department, agency, or element to serve in 
     any position in the Intelligence Community Assignment 
     Program.
       (2) Basis of detail.--
       (A) In general.--Personnel may be detailed under paragraph 
     (1) on a reimbursable or nonreimbursable basis.
       (B) Period of nonreimbursable detail.--Personnel detailed 
     on a nonreimbursable basis shall be detailed for such periods 
     not to exceed three years as are agreed upon between the 
     heads of the departments or agencies concerned. However, the 
     heads of the departments or agencies may provide for the 
     extension of a detail for not to exceed one year if the 
     extension is in the public interest.
       (b) Benefits, Allowances, and Incentives.--The department, 
     agency, or element

[[Page S5977]]

     detailing personnel to the Intelligence Community Assignment 
     Program under subsection (a) on a non-reimbursable basis may 
     provide such personnel any salary, pay, retirement, or other 
     benefits, allowances (including travel allowances), or 
     incentives as are provided to other personnel of the 
     department, agency, or element.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on June 
     1, 1997.

     SEC. 304. EXTENSION OF APPLICATION OF SANCTIONS LAWS TO 
                   INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES.

       Section 905 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 
     441d) is amended by striking out ``January 6, 1998'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``January 6, 2001''.

     SEC. 305. ADMINISTRATIVE LOCATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE 
                   DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE.

       Section 102(e) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 
     U.S.C. 403(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) The Office of the Director of Central Intelligence 
     shall, for administrative purposes, be within the Central 
     Intelligence Agency.''.

     SEC. 306. ENCOURAGEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN INFORMATION 
                   TO CONGRESS.

       (a) Encouragement.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the President shall take appropriate 
     actions to inform the employees of the executive branch, and 
     employees of contractors carrying out activities under 
     classified contracts, that the disclosure of information 
     described in paragraph (2) to the committee of Congress 
     having oversight responsibility for the department, agency, 
     or element to which such information relates, or to the 
     Members of Congress who represent such employees, is not 
     prohibited by law, executive order, or regulation or 
     otherwise contrary to public policy.
       (2) Covered information.--Paragraph (1) applies to 
     information, including classified information, that an 
     employee reasonably believes to evidence--
       (A) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation;
       (B) a false statement to Congress on an issue of material 
     fact; or
       (C) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse 
     of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public 
     health or safety.
       (b) Report.--On the date that is 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to Congress 
     a report on the actions taken under subsection (a).

     SEC. 307. PROVISION OF INFORMATION ON VIOLENT CRIMES AGAINST 
                   UNITED STATES CITIZENS ABROAD TO VICTIMS AND 
                   VICTIMS' FAMILIES.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) it is in the national interests of the United States to 
     provide information regarding the murder or kidnapping of 
     United States citizens abroad to the victims, or the families 
     of victims, of such crimes; and
       (2) the provision of such information is sufficiently 
     important that the discharge of the responsibility for 
     identifying and disseminating such information should be 
     vested in a cabinet-level officer of the United States 
     Government.
       (b) Responsibility.--The Secretary of State shall take 
     appropriate actions to ensure that the United States 
     Government takes all appropriate actions to--
       (1) identify promptly information (including classified 
     information) in the possession of the departments and 
     agencies of the United States Government regarding the murder 
     or kidnapping of United States citizens abroad; and
       (2) subject to subsection (c), make such information 
     available to the victims or, where appropriate, the families 
     of victims of such crimes.
       (c) Classified Information.--The Secretary shall work with 
     the Director of Central Intelligence to ensure that 
     classified information relevant to a crime covered by 
     subsection (b) is promptly reviewed and, to the maximum 
     extent practicable without jeopardizing sensitive sources and 
     methods or other vital national security interests, made 
     available under that subsection.

     SEC. 308. STANDARDS FOR SPELLING OF FOREIGN NAMES AND PLACES 
                   AND FOR USE OF GEOGRAPHIC COORDINATES.

       (a) Survey of Current Standards.--
       (1) Survey.--The Director of Central Intelligence shall 
     carry out a survey of current standards for the spelling of 
     foreign names and places, and the use of geographic 
     coordinates for such places, among the elements of the 
     intelligence community.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act the Director shall submit to the 
     congressional intelligence committees a report on the survey 
     carried out under paragraph (1).
       (b) Guidelines.--
       (1) Issuance.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director shall issue guidelines to 
     ensure the use of uniform spelling of foreign names and 
     places and the uniform use of geographic coordinates for such 
     places. The guidelines shall apply to all intelligence 
     reports, intelligence products, and intelligence databases 
     prepared and utilized by the elements of the intelligence 
     community.
       (2) Basis.--The guidelines under paragraph (1) shall, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, be based on current United 
     States Government standards for the transliteration of 
     foreign names, standards for foreign place names developed by 
     the Board on Geographic Names, and a standard set of 
     geographic coordinates.
       (3) Submittal to congress.--The Director shall submit a 
     copy of the guidelines to the congressional intelligence 
     committees.
       (c) Congressional Intelligence Committees Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``congressional intelligence committees'' 
     means the following:
       (1) The Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.
       (2) The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the 
     House of Representatives.

     SEC. 309. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       It is the sense of the Senate that any tax legislation 
     enacted by the Congress this year should meet a standard of 
     fairness in its distributional impact on upper, middle and 
     lower income taxpayers, and that any such legislation should 
     not disproportionately benefit the highest income taxpayers.
                 TITLE IV--CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

     SEC. 401. MULTIYEAR LEASING AUTHORITY.

       Section 5 of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 
     (50 U.S.C. 403f) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (e), by striking out ``without regard'' 
     and all that follows through the end and inserting in lieu 
     thereof a semicolon;
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (f) as paragraph (g); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (e) the following new 
     paragraph (f):
       ``(f) Notwithstanding section 1341(a)(1) of title 31, 
     United States Code, enter into multiyear leases for lease 
     terms of not to exceed 15 years, except that--
       ``(1) any such lease shall be subject to the availability 
     of appropriations in an amount necessary to cover--
       ``(A) rental payments over the entire term of the lease; or
       ``(B) rental payments over the first 12 months of the term 
     of the lease and the penalty, if any, payable in the event of 
     the termination of the lease at the end of the first 12 
     months of the term; and
       ``(2) if the Agency enters into a lease using the authority 
     in subparagraph (1)(B)--
       ``(A) the lease shall include a clause that provides that 
     the lease shall be terminated if specific appropriations 
     available for the rental payments are not provided in advance 
     of the obligation to make the rental payments;
       ``(B) notwithstanding section 1552 of title 31, United 
     States Code, amounts obligated for paying costs associated 
     with terminating the lease shall remain available until such 
     costs are paid;
       ``(C) amounts obligated for payment of costs associated 
     with terminating the lease may be used instead to make rental 
     payments under the lease, but only to the extent that such 
     amounts are not required to pay such costs; and
       ``(D) amounts available in a fiscal year to make rental 
     payments under the lease shall be available for that purpose 
     for not more than 12 months commencing at any time during the 
     fiscal year; and''.

     SEC. 402. SUBPOENA AUTHORITY FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE 
                   CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY.

       (a) Authority.--Subsection (e) of section 17 of the Central 
     Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 (50 U.S.C. 403q) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (5) through (7) as 
     paragraphs (6) through (8), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new 
     paragraph (5):
       ``(5)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the 
     Inspector General is authorized to require by subpoena the 
     production of all information, documents, reports, answers, 
     records, accounts, papers, and other data and documentary 
     evidence necessary in the performance of the duties and 
     responsibilities of the Inspector General.
       ``(B) In the case of Government agencies, the Inspector 
     General shall obtain information, documents, reports, 
     answers, records, accounts, papers, and other data and 
     evidence for the purpose specified in subparagraph (A) using 
     procedures other than subpoenas.
       ``(C) The Inspector General may not issue a subpoena for or 
     on behalf of any other element or component of the Agency.
       ``(D) In the case of contumacy or refusal to obey a 
     subpoena issued under this paragraph, the subpoena shall be 
     enforceable by order of any appropriate district court of the 
     United States.
       ``(E) Not later than January 31 and July 31 of each year, 
     the Inspector General shall submit to the Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee 
     on Intelligence of the House of Representatives a report of 
     the Inspector General's exercise of authority under this 
     paragraph during the preceding six months.''.
       (b) Limitation on Authority for Protection of National 
     Security.--Subsection (b)(3) of that section is amended by 
     inserting ``, or from issuing any subpoena, after the 
     Inspector General has decided to initiate, carry out, or 
     complete such audit, inspection, or investigation or to issue 
     such subpoena,'' after ``or investigation''.
         TITLE V--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

     SEC. 501. ACADEMIC DEGREES IN INTELLIGENCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 2161 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

[[Page S5978]]

     ``Sec. 2161. Joint Military Intelligence College: master of 
       science in strategic intelligence; bachelor of science in 
       intelligence

       ``Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, 
     the President of the Joint Military Intelligence College may, 
     upon recommendation by the faculty of the college, confer the 
     degree of master of science in strategic intelligence and the 
     degree of bachelor of science in intelligence upon the 
     graduates of the college who have fulfilled the requirements 
     for such degree.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The item relating to section 
     2161 in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 108 
     of such title is amended to read as follows:

``2161. Joint Military Intelligence College: master of science in 
              strategic intelligence; bachelor of science in 
              intelligence.''.

     SEC. 502. FUNDING FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND QUALITY OF LIFE 
                   IMPROVEMENTS AT MENWITH HILL AND BAD AIBLING 
                   STATIONS.

       Section 506(b) of the Intelligence Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-93; 109 Stat. 974) is 
     amended by striking out ``for fiscal years 1996 and 1997'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``for fiscal years 1998 and 
     1999''.

     SEC. 503. MISUSE OF NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE NAME, 
                   INITIALS, OR SEAL.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 21 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 426. Unauthorized use of National Reconnaissance 
       Office name, initials, or seal

       ``(a) Prohibited Acts.--Except with the joint written 
     permission of the Secretary of Defense and the Director of 
     Central Intelligence, no person may knowingly use, in 
     connection with any merchandise, retail product, 
     impersonation, solicitation, or commercial activity, in a 
     manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that 
     such use is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the 
     Secretary or the Director, any of the following:
       ``(1) The words `National Reconnaissance Office' or the 
     initials `NRO'.
       ``(2) The seal of the National Reconnaissance Office.
       ``(3) Any colorable imitation of such words, initials, or 
     seal.
       ``(b) Injunction.--(1) Whenever it appears to the Attorney 
     General that any person is engaged or is about to engage in 
     an act or practice which constitutes or will constitute 
     conduct prohibited by subsection (a), the Attorney General 
     may initiate a civil proceeding in a district court of the 
     United States to enjoin such act or practice.
       ``(2) Such court shall proceed as soon as practicable to 
     the hearing and determination of such action and may, at any 
     time before final determination, enter such restraining 
     orders or prohibitions, or take such other action as is 
     warranted, to prevent injury to the United States or to any 
     person or class of persons for whose protection the action is 
     brought.''
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of that subchapter is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``426. Unauthorized use of National Reconnaissance Office name, 
              initials, or seal.''.

  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  (The remarks of Mr. Cochran pertaining to the introduction of S. 939 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________