[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 165 (Friday, November 19, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14947-S14951]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader I submit 
a report of the committee of conference on the bill (H.R. 1555) to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 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, and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill, H.R. 
     1555, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
     respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of the 
     conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The Conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of November 5, 1999).
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 60 
minutes for debate with the time divided as follows: Forty minutes 
equally divided between the chairman and vice chairman of the 
Intelligence Committee; 20 minutes under the control of Senator Levin.
  I further ask unanimous consent that following the use or yielding 
back of time, which we anticipate, the conference report be agreed to, 
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any additional 
statements relating to the conference report be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to ask that my colleagues 
support the conference report on the Intelligence Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2000.
  I want to thank my colleagues in the House for their work on this 
legislation and especially Chairman Goss and Ranking Member Dixon for 
their leadership in the conference.
  I believe that the conference committee put together a solid package 
for consideration by the full Senate that fairly represents the 
intelligence priorities set forth in both the Senate and House versions 
of the Intelligence Authorization Act.
  I am pleased to report that the conference committee accomplished its 
task in a bipartisan manner, and I want to thank my colleague from 
Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, for working so closely with me to produce 
this legislation.
  I believe that the conference report embraces many of the key 
recommendations that the Senate adopted in its version of the bill.
  We recommended significant increases in funding for high-priority 
projects aimed at better positioning the Intelligence Community for the 
threats of the 21st century, while at the same time reducing funds for 
programs and activities that were not adequately justified or 
redundant.
  In so doing, we authorized a moderate increase in overall funding for 
intelligence programs above the President's request. This is a positive 
step and I hope that next year the administration will follow our lead 
and begin to reinvest in our intelligence gathering capabilities.
  The conference report includes key initiatives that I believe are 
vital for the future of our Intelligence Community.
  These initiatives include:
  1. bolstering advanced research and development across the Community, 
to facilitate, among other things, the modernization of NSA and CIA;

[[Page S14948]]

  2. strengthening efforts in counter-proliferation, counter-terrorism, 
counter-narcotics, counter-intelligence, and effective covert action;
  3. expanding the collection and exploitation of measurements and 
signatures intelligence, especially ballistic missile intelligence;
  4. boosting education, recruiting, and technical training for 
Intelligence Community personnel;
  5. enhancing analytical capabilities;
  6. streamlining dissemination of intelligence products;
  7. developing our ability to process, exploit and disseminate 
commercial imagery; and
  8. providing new tools for information operations.
  I believe that the conferees have provided the funds and guidance 
necessary to ensure that military commanders and national policymakers 
continue to receive timely, accurate information on threats to our 
security.
  At the same time, we have found some critical areas within the 
Community that are in need of major improvements.
  In the Senate, we had a distinguished panel of Americans with a broad 
range of expertise--our Technical Advisory Group--that took a look at 
some key areas within the Intelligence Community and brought forward 
some very important recommendations.
  We thank all the members of the Technical Advisory Group for their 
time and efforts.
  I will briefly summarize some of their findings, to the extent that I 
can in open session, along with some of the other findings of our 
conference.
  First, our ability to collect and analyze information on the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction requires renewed emphasis 
and innovative thinking.
  As our potential enemies seek out the ability to produce chemical, 
biological, and nuclear weapons, we must develop the ability to detect 
these efforts.
  This bill places a great deal of emphasis on our ability to collect 
such information known as Measurements and Signatures Intelligence or 
MASINT.
  Second, both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees agree that 
our Intelligence Community and our Defense Department must move quickly 
to address what our Technical Advisory Group identifies as a critical 
shortfall in our ability to properly task, process, exploit, and 
disseminate intelligence information collection by our airborne and 
overhead imagery assets.
  As we modernize our Imagery Intelligence or IMINT architecture, the 
Intelligence and Armed Services Committees agree that we should not be 
spending the taxpayers money on collection architectures that we may 
not be able to utilize fully.
  Third, we have once again placed strong emphasis on recapitalizing 
the National Security Agency's information technology infrastructure.
  As we demand more from our Intelligence Community in a number of 
areas, we also demand fiscal responsibility. The conference report 
includes a number of reductions to programs that were not adequately 
justified or were redundant with other elements within the Intelligence 
Community.
  The legislation contains some important new authorities for the 
Intelligence Community. I'll mention some of the highlights:
  First, there are new protections for the identities of former covert 
agents and for the operational files of the National Imagery and 
Mapping Agency or ``NIMA.''
  Second, there are new counterintelligence authorities--these include 
provisions allowing access to government computers used in classified 
work by executive branch employees. Also, there are new requirements 
for the FBI to begin its consultation with agencies that they are 
investigating at a far earlier stage than before.
  Third, we have established a commission to study the role and 
missions of the National Reconnaissance Office or ``NRO.'' This 
commission will look at the NRO from top to bottom--its findings and 
recommendations to us and the Senate Armed Services Committee will 
serve to guide our committees on the future funding and operations of 
the NRO.
  I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee to ensure that the best candidates are 
selected for membership on this very important commission.
  If any Member of the Senate wishes to review the classified portions 
of the bill, they are available off the Senate floor.
  Finally, Mr. President, there is a significant piece of legislation 
in this bill that is intended to go after foreign international drug 
traffickers and those that support their illicit activities.
  Title eight of this bill, the so-called ``Foreign Narcotics Kingpin 
Designation Act,'' is modeled after the Executive Order that targets 
the assets of named Colombian traffickers and those that assist them in 
their trafficking activities.
  Mr. President, I support strongly efforts to target and destroy 
significant foreign drug trafficking organizations. I have placed 
significant emphasis on counter-narcotics in this and every 
Intelligence Authorization bill since I became Chairman of this 
Committee. The record is clear.
  The existing Colombian program has been highly successful. I would be 
the first to support the President if he chose to expand the program in 
a thoughtful and measured way. In fact, the Chief Executive already has 
the constitutional and statutory authority to do so. The President does 
not need this legislation to expand the scope of this program.
  Accordingly, Mr. President, I, along with other Members of Congress, 
have expressed concern with this legislation because it may have some 
very serious unintended consequences for innocent American citizens.
  Although the express language of the ``Kingpin'' legislation deals 
exclusively with foreign persons and entities, it will affect American 
citizens. Lurking within the seemingly innocuous language is the real 
possibility of unwitting and innocent American citizens being caught up 
in its global net. For example, an American business owner may be a 
joint venture partner with a foreign company that has been designated 
as ``supporting'' the activities of a foreign narcotics trafficker. 
Although the American person may be completely unaware of the illicit 
activities of their foreign partner, their own assets will also be 
blocked if they are jointly held.
  The ``Kingpin'' legislation does not provide an opportunity for an 
American person to seek judicial review of the blocking of their 
jointly held assets. The result is that Americans may be deprived of 
their property without due process of law. Let me repeat that, Mr. 
President, Americans may be deprived of their property without due 
process of law.
  Mr. President, I strongly support the expansion of this successful 
program. I do not, however, support depriving innocent Americans of 
their fundamental right to due process.
  Many attempts were made to amend the ``Kingpin'' legislation in 
conference to make it clear that American citizens have an immediate 
avenue into Federal District Court should they be snared unjustifiably 
in this trap. Unfortunately, the sponsors and proponents of this bill 
in the House and Senate opposed any effort to clarify this fundamental 
American right. In fact, I have been told that if we were to expressly 
state that a United States citizen has the right to immediate judicial 
review, this would, quote, gut the bill, unquote. I disagree.
  Thomas Jefferson said that our ``Bill of Rights is what the people 
are entitled to against any government on earth . . . and what no just 
government should refuse, or rest on inference.'' Mr. President, I also 
believe that our right to due process should not ``rest on inference,'' 
but rather we should state it clearly and without equivocation. We do 
not do that in this bill.
  Mr. President, I fear that in our earnest to pass a ``tough drug 
bill'' we may have sacrificed part of our freedom. I applaud the 
sponsors and proponents of this bill for their dedication to protecting 
our shores from the scourge of illegal drugs. I caution them, however, 
that their enthusiasm may be dampened as the true implications of this 
legislation become known.
  Notwithstanding my concerns, I am encouraged that the conferees did 
agree to include a provision in the so-called ``Kingpin'' legislation 
that creates a panel to study whether these

[[Page S14949]]

kinds of sanction regimes affect U.S. persons doing legitimate business 
with foreign partners, and whether there are adequate and fair remedies 
for honest U.S. persons.
  I commend my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, for suggesting 
this study and also for other areas of leadership on which I have 
worked with the Senator during my tenure on the Intelligence Committee. 
He will be leaving the Intelligence Committee at the end of this year 
whenever his term is up, and we will miss him because he has certainly 
been a friend, but he has also been a leader to put America's national 
security first and foremost everywhere it comes up.
  In my opinion, we have put the cart squarely before the horse dealing 
with due process. I am confident that such a panel as I alluded to 
earlier will confirm my concerns and the concerns of others and make 
substantive recommendations that my well-meaning colleagues will 
ultimately acknowledge and I hope will be able to accept.
  The conference committee worked closely together in a bipartisan 
fashion to produce the comprehensive intelligence authorization act. I 
urge my colleagues to support its adoption.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I would like to recognize 
and thank Senator Shelby and Senator Kerrey for their leadership and 
support with regard to the POW/MIA sections of the Intelligence 
Authorization Act that originally passed the full Senate earlier this 
year. I am pleased that one of these sections has remained largely 
intact in the conference report we are now adopting. That provision 
(Section 308), will require a declassification review of two 
assessments of Vietnam's cooperation on the POW/MIA issue which were 
conducted in 1998. One of these assessments was prepared by my office 
and the other by the National Intelligence Council. Much of the 
information in both of these documents does not require continued 
classification, and I believe the interests of the POW/MIA families and 
our nation's veterans is best served by having as much information as 
possible in the public domain concerning Vietnam's performance on the 
POW/MIA question. As the Chairman will recall, there is a provision in 
Section 308 that allows the Director of Central Intelligence to 
withhold from declassification the names of living foreign individuals 
who have cooperated with U.S. efforts to account for missing personnel 
from the Vietnam War. I wish to make clear that the Congressional 
intent with respect to this provision was related to individuals 
identified in the National Intelligence Estimate as ``cooperative'' 
with U.S. officials in Hanoi. Indeed, this specific area of concern was 
cited by the Director of Central Intelligence in a letter to the Senate 
on August 3, 1998. However, this is not meant to include information 
pertaining to the two former Vietnamese officials who are alleged to 
have prepared the so-called ``1205'' and ``735'' documents which we 
received through the Russian government which were reviewed in both of 
the above-referenced assessments. Is that the Chairman's understanding 
as well?
  Mr. SHELBY. Yes it is.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Chairman for that 
clarification.
  Mr. President, I also want to take this opportunity to express by 
profound disappointment that the other section concerning release of 
POW/MIA information to the Congress was not adopted by the Conference 
because of Member opposition from the House Permanent Select Committee 
on Intelligence. This provision, previously adopted by the full Senate 
this summer with the support of the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the 
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, required our intelligence 
agencies to provide to Congress, within 120 days, a list of POW-MIA 
related documents that are still classified. This list would help the 
Congress exercise oversight on the POW/MIA issue on behalf of the 
families of missing personnel and our nation's veterans. I fail to see 
why such a reasonable provision could not have been adopted with the 
full support of the Conference. I plan to revisit this matter in the 
coming months, and would appreciate having the Chairman's views as to 
how we might proceed with respect to this important matter.
  Mr. SHELBY. I share the disappointment expressed by my colleague, the 
senior Senator from New Hampshire. As he knows, I have worked steadily 
with him over the past several years to address his well-founded 
concerns with respect to the way the POW/MIA issue has been addressed 
by our Intelligence Community. I agree that the provision to which he 
refers would help us with our oversight responsibilities. That is why I 
supported his amendment, as did my Vice-Chairman, when our intelligence 
bill passed the full Senate earlier this year. I want the Senator to 
know that I will work closely with him over the next few months to find 
a way to get the listing of POW/MIA reports he seeks provided to the 
Senate. He has a right to review these reports, as does every Member of 
the Senate. I would urge the Director of Central Intelligence and heads 
of each of our intelligence agencies to work cooperatively with the 
Select Committee on Intelligence on this matter. I also want the 
Senator to know that I will include his provision in next year's 
authorization measure if the information he seeks is not provided to 
the Senate in the next few months. I thank him for his leadership on 
this important matter.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank my distinguished colleague for 
that clarification and for his continued support on the POW/MIA issue.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, following my 
remarks, an editorial which appeared recently in the New York Times 
dealing with drug kingpin legislation, and specifically the due process 
problem I raised, be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)

                               Exhibit 1


                         Carried Away by Drugs

       The target of a new anti-drug initiative now speeding 
     toward final congressional approval is a worthy one--big 
     international drug traffickers. But as too often happens when 
     Congress collaborates with the Clinton administration to 
     toughen law enforcement policies, civil liberties stand to 
     suffer.
       The measure, called the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin 
     Designation Act, over-whelmingly passed the House two weeks 
     ago. A House-Senate conference committee incorporated the 
     measure in the annual intelligence authorization bill that 
     needs only a final floor vote in the Senate before going to 
     the president's desk for his signature. All of this occurred 
     without any public hearings or extended debate to explore the 
     legislation's implications for due process and other 
     constitutional values.
       Under the measure, the government will be required to 
     compile an annual list of those it determines to be 
     ``significant foreign narcotics traffickers'' under standards 
     that the bill does not articulate. The government would then 
     have authority to freeze their assets in the United State 
     without any chance for judicial review of the basis of the 
     designation.
       Americans who engage in financial dealings with a person or 
     company on the list could have their assets blocked, again 
     without the benefit of full judicial review. The measure 
     makes no exception for those investors or partners who 
     thought they were dealing with legitimate businesses.
       ``Is this the America we want?'' asked Representative 
     Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, as he waged a lonely 
     and futile fight against the bill in the House. ``What is the 
     remedy if the bureaucracy gets the wrong person?'' Those 
     pertinent questions were sadly lost in the rush to crack down 
     on foreign drug lords before Congress adjourns.

  Mr. SHELBY. I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise to join Chairman Shelby in urging 
my colleagues to vote in favor of the intelligence authorization 
conference report. This report is a culmination of the lengthy effort 
to fund intelligence activities for fiscal year 2000. It has not been 
easy to arrive at this point because the committee had to address many 
significant nonintelligence issues ranging from the reorganization of 
the Department of Energy to the establishment of procedures for 
blocking the assets of drug kingpins. We have arrived at this point 
because we have reached several important compromises with our House 
colleagues, and the report deserves the Senate's full support.
  This conference report supports many new initiatives. In my view, one 
of the most important new initiatives is to make the year 2000 a 
watershed year for intelligence. The watershed represents a turnaround 
in spending on intelligence activities. I believe it is time to 
increase spending because we now have a much better understanding

[[Page S14950]]

of the threats facing the United States of America and the important 
role intelligence plays in meeting those threats.
  One of the most difficult parts of my job as the Intelligence 
Committee vice chairman has been to talk to people about the importance 
of intelligence. This job is difficult because most of the information 
is classified. Therefore, public debate on the condition of the 
intelligence community is extremely rare and discussing funding levels 
is almost impossible.
  My colleagues are well aware that classified conference reports and 
the classified schedules of authorizations are available for their 
review in S. 407 but you have to go there to get the details. We cannot 
talk about them now.
  Let me say, however, intelligence is stretched very thin. Our global 
reach is supported by intelligence as global coverage. Without adequate 
coverage, we make policy mistakes. The Intelligence Community is 
stretched thin in trying to meet all of its commitments to policy 
makers. But I can't tell you on the floor of the Senate how thin it is 
stretched, and I can't tell you how much it's going to cost to fix. I 
can only tell you I'm glad fiscal year 2000 is a watershed year for 
intelligence.

  A second initiative this bill supports is striking the balance 
between intelligence collection and the subsequent exploitation and 
dissemination of the information collected. My colleagues should know 
that one of the problems of insufficient funding is that the 
Intelligence Community is unable properly to exploit and disseminate 
all of the information it gathers. If you think about it, this may seem 
odd. That is, the Community is collecting more information than it is 
able to analyze and deliver to its customers. But it is not odd. Among 
other things, it reflects constrained Intelligence budgets. As the 
Community has moved into advanced technologies, it has invested in the 
future by developing new intelligence collection systems. The idea was 
that by the time these new systems were ready to be used, we would have 
been able to find the funding to exploit and disseminate the 
information being collected. Well the future is now, and we haven't 
been able to find the funding to balance collection, exploitation, and 
dissemination. In this bill we have confronted the issue and proposed 
important solutions. Again, I urge my colleagues to read the classified 
report in S-407 in order to get the details.
  Another important provision in this bill is the creation of a 
National Commission for the review of the National Reconnaissance 
Office. Mr. President, the NRO is a national treasure. They acquire and 
operate the nation's space reconnaissance satellites--the so-called spy 
satellites. They have a long and proud history of being on the leading 
edge of technology so that our nation's leaders could be better 
informed about our adversaries. We all got a glimpse at their 
extraordinary abilities when the Corona spy satellite imagery was 
released to the public. It is literally an eye-opening experience to be 
able to see now what our President was able to see years ago about the 
Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War. This is the type of 
effort we have come to expect from NRO.
  But the NRO has come under public attack in the recent past. 
Unfavorable news accounts have caused some to be unsure about the NRO 
and the path it is following. Others have questioned whether the NRO 
should remain an agency resting somewhere between the authorities of 
the Director of Central Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense. 
Moreover, the end of the Cold War has altered forever the nature of the 
threats we face. New threats mean a changed emphasis for intelligence. 
Furthermore, the explosion of information technology has created new 
opportunities for the collection and the delivery of intelligence. 
Thus, the Conferees decided there is a need to evaluate the NRO's roles 
and missions, organizational structure, technical skills, contractor 
relationships, uses of commercial satellite imagery, acquisition 
authorities, and its relationships to other agencies and departments of 
the Federal Government in order to assure continuing success in 
satellite reconnaissance. I look forward to the Commission's work.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would like to comment briefly on the 
``Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act'' contained in the 
conference report. This is a significant piece of legislation intended 
to attack drug traffickers at the heart by blocking all of their assets 
either within the United States or that are under U.S. control. It 
establishes a procedure for the President of the United States to 
publicly identify drug kingpins and to block the kingpin's assets. As 
my colleagues may recall, a similar provision sponsored by Senators 
Coverdell and Feinstein was accepted as an amendment to the 
Intelligence Authorization Bill during floor action.
  As I mentioned at the beginning of my statement, this provision has 
made the Intelligence Conference extremely interesting. Several of us 
joined the Chairman in being concerned about the right of judicial 
review for U.S. persons whose assets could be seized as a result of 
being involved in a joint venture with someone later identified as a 
drug kingpin. This was a matter of debate during discussions leading to 
the conference meeting and was addressed during the conference. The 
House Conferees argued strenuously for their vision of the legislation 
which passed the House by a vote of 385 to 26. Further, the 
Administration supported the House version. Nonetheless, Chairman 
Shelby and several of us remained concerned about due process being 
afforded to those who might unwittingly get caught up in the kingpin 
designation and subsequent blocking of assets.
  The Conference agreed the concerns were of sufficient merit to 
warrant the appointment of a special judicial review panel to evaluate 
these concerns and report its findings. The commission is charged with 
the responsibility of reviewing judicial, regulatory, and 
administrative authorities relating to the blocking of assets. It also 
is to report on its evaluation of the remedies available to U.S. 
persons affected by the Government's blocking of assets of foreign 
persons. I believe their detailed and extended evaluation will provide 
the Congress insights into both the complexities of the Drug Kingpin 
legislation contained in the Intelligence Conference Report and the 
consequences to American persons when the assets of foreign persons are 
blocked under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I would like to note this is my last 
Conference Report as the committee's Vice Chairman. My term on the 
Committee expires toward the end of January 2000. I have had the 
privilege of serving under highly distinguished Chairmen and Vice 
Chairmen: David Boren, Frank Murkowski, Dennis DeConcini, John Warner, 
Arlen Specter, and Richard Shelby. In every instance, I have 
experienced a commitment to a bipartisan approach to intelligence.
  Throughout my time on the Committee, the members always have treated 
intelligence activities and intelligence policy as serious issues 
deserving their close attention. Because the issues have always been 
treated very seriously, committee members have had disagreements. But, 
Mr. President, in the end we always found a bipartisan answer to our 
differences. Bipartisanship has been a hallmark of the committee 
because intelligence is not a partisan issue. If it ever should become 
a partisan issue, I believe we can look forward to a consequent 
politicization of intelligence.
  This can be very bad for Congress and even worse for the country.
  Again, I thank Chairman Shelby for his leadership in delivering the 
conference report to the floor and for his commitment to finding 
bipartisan answers to some very complex questions. I look forward to 
the opportunity in the future to speak more fully on the floor 
concerning intelligence and its values.
  Lastly, I call to my colleagues' attention and to the attention of 
the American people that the intelligence community is full of highly 
dedicated men and women who are working under some of the most 
difficult of circumstances. Their professionalism, their patriotism 
knows no bounds, and I salute them for their excellent work. Being the 
committee vice chairman has, indeed, been a great privilege.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S14951]]



                          ____________________