[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 60 (Monday, April 16, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4463-S4470]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 372, which the clerk will report.

       A bill (S. 372) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
     2007 for the intelligence and intelligence-related activities 
     of the United States Government, the Intelligence Community 
     Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency 
     Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, first, let me express my 
disappointment that we are here under these circumstances. This is not 
the way we should be handling this important national security 
legislation.
  The fiscal year 2007 Intelligence authorization bill should have been 
considered by the Senate, in fact, 7 months ago when it was reported 
unanimously by the Intelligence Committee. That is usually the way 
things are meant to work. For reasons that are still not clear to me, 
it was never brought before the Senate.
  Because of the importance of this legislation, Vice Chairman Bond and 
I made the Intelligence bill the first order of business this January 
when the new Congress convened. We hoped the Senate could act swiftly 
on the bill so we could move to the conference with the House, but an 
anonymous hold on the other side prevented us from bringing up the bill 
and passing it by unanimous consent. Again, I am not

[[Page S4464]]

clear what the reason for that might have been, but it was discouraging 
to us and, in any event, it precluded our taking any action whatsoever.
  Fortunately, Senator Reid understands how important this legislation 
is. So last week he attempted to call up the bill. But even that simple 
motion to proceed to the bill was blocked, forcing the Senate to invoke 
cloture by a vote of 94 in favor and 3 against.
  The Senate, after 7 months of delay, is finally considering the 
legislation that sets the policy framework for the Nation's 
intelligence efforts, but because of the inordinate number of obstacles 
put in the path of the bill to date, the majority leader has been 
forced to file a motion to invoke cloture on this legislation. I agree 
with him that this is the only way to force the Senate to finally do 
its job and pass this very important bill. It is unfortunate, but it 
has to happen. This is national security legislation.
  I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to support cloture so that 
we can move this bill forward to a conference with the House. I know I 
am joined by my colleague, the vice chairman. I understand that some, 
both in the Senate and in the administration, have expressed concern 
with a number of the provisions of the bill. The Office of Management 
and Budget issued a Statement of Administration Policy last Thursday 
including a veto threat, and unfortunately that statement ignored 
several important developments and several changes Vice Chairman Bond 
and I have proposed in a managers' amendment, which I am going to talk 
about briefly.
  The administration complains about the magnitude of the fences and 
other restrictions contained in the classified annex to the bill. They 
ignore the fact that the classified annex was drafted last September 
with a view to having it in full effect for the full fiscal year. Vice 
Chairman Bond and I decided in January that the best approach to 
achieve swift passage was to simply bring up and pass the bill as it 
had been reported unanimously last year.
  We have always known that many of these provisions have become 
outdated or have been overtaken by events. Of course, they will be 
adjusted, or perhaps dropped, when we go to conference. We have no 
intention of fencing 50 percent of a program with only 4 or 5 months 
left in this year. Please give us some credit.
  Perhaps the more important omission in the OMB statement is the 
effort that Vice Chairman Bond and I have made to address, through a 
managers' amendment, many of the administration's specific concerns 
with those legislative provisions. I will run through these provisions 
quickly.
  As reported by the committee, the bill requires two actions related 
to the public disclosure of intelligence budgets. First, it requires 
the public release of an overall budget request authorization and 
appropriation, the so-called top line, one number for all intelligence 
spending.
  The second action is a study and report by the Director of National 
Intelligence on whether the top line for each intelligence community 
element; that is, the CIA, NSA, et cetera, can always be declassified 
without harming national security. This was a recommendation, in fact, 
of the 9/11 Commission.
  The managers' amendment; that is, the amendment by Senator Bond and 
myself, struck that requirement for a study and a report on the agency-
level declassification. The study and report alarmed some who believed 
that declassification itself would cause no harm but worry that it 
could lead to a ``slippery slope'' of revealing too much information.
  The managers' amendment returns the bill language to the specific 
stated objective; that is, the declassification of the overall national 
intelligence budget. This is something the Senate has voted for twice 
in the last 2\1/2\ years, including last month when it passed S. 4.
  This concurrent version of the authorization bill includes another 
provision that has passed the Senate twice but which concerns the 
administration and some of our colleagues. That provision in section 
108 provides additional authority for congressional committees, 
including the Intelligence Committees of both the House and Senate, to 
obtain intelligence documents and information.
  The managers' amendment modifies section 108 in three ways. First, it 
doubles the amount of time the administration will have to respond to 
these priority requests from 15 to 30 days.
  Second, section 108 currently applies to requests from any 
committee--any committee--that has jurisdiction over any part of 
intelligence, not just the Intelligence Committees of full jurisdiction 
in the House and Senate. This amendment will limit the provision to 
requests from the Intelligence Committees.
  Third, it would make clear the Intelligence Committee could specify a 
greater number of days than 30 for intelligence community responses. We 
are not unreasonable people, and if more time is needed, we would, 
obviously, want to be helpful.
  Let me be clear to my colleagues on other committees with 
jurisdiction that touches on intelligence matters, because some of them 
are sensitive about this issue. These changes will in no way limit 
their ability to ask for and receive intelligence-related information. 
In fact, any Senator can ask for such information.
  The amendment sets up an expedited procedure available to the 
Intelligence Committees, but it does not change existing relations or 
procedures for obtaining such information for other committees. That 
should be of comfort. If another committee were to encounter difficulty 
in obtaining intelligence information, they could easily ask the 
intelligence community to request the information under this expedited 
procedure. It sounds wordy; in fact, it is very easy. I think this is a 
sensible modification to alleviate the concern that the Intelligence 
Committee would be overwhelmed with requests requiring short turnaround 
times. Vice Chairman Bond and I are sensitive to that concern and 
modified the matter.
  A second provision of the bill dealing with the provision of 
information to Congress is section 304. That section tightens up the 
requirement for the President to fully inform the Intelligence 
Committees about intelligence activities, including covert actions. 
Section 304, as reported, requires if the President does not inform all 
members of the committee about intelligence activity, the DNI must 
provide all members with a summary with sufficient information to 
permit members to assess the legality, benefits, cost, and advisability 
of these activities. This is on a case-by-case basis.
  There was a discussion of this provision during our markup, and the 
administration has objected that this requirement is too detailed. The 
managers' amendment seeks to resolve that objection by providing 
instead that the DNI submit a classified notice with ``a description 
that provides the main features of the intelligence activities.'' This 
standard is sufficiently broad to allow the notification of members, 
but at the same time protects sensitive sources and methods or ongoing 
operations.
  Section 310 of this bill, as reported, would establish a pilot 
program on access by the intelligence community to information 
protected by the Privacy Act. This provision was controversial and 
several members expressed reservations. We subsequently learned the 
administration is no longer seeking this authority, so the managers' 
amendment strikes section 310 from the bill.
  Finally, the managers' amendment modifies one of the reporting 
requirements included in the bill. Section 314 requires a classified 
report from the Director of National Intelligence about clandestine 
prisons. One part of that provision called for reporting on the 
location of any clandestine detention facility. Vice Chairman Bond and 
I agreed this particular information was of such sensitivity it should 
not be included in this report. The managers' amendment strikes that 
one requirement.
  Mr. President, might I ask before calling up the managers' amendment, 
does the distinguished vice chairman wish to speak?
  Mr. President, will the vice chairman have adequate time to speak?
  Mr. Bond. Mr. President, if the chairman wishes to offer the 
amendment, I will be happy for him to do that. I will talk as long or 
short as I have the opportunity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time limit on the bill at this 
point.

[[Page S4465]]

                           Amendment No. 843

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I offer the managers' amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller], for 
     himself and Mr. Bond, proposes an amendment numbered 843.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my distinguished 
colleague, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator 
Rockefeller, in not only bringing before this body the Intelligence 
authorization bill, S. 372, but also offering the managers' amendment. 
This is an important first step for the Senate to return to and enhance 
its responsibilities of coordinating oversight and conducting 
aggressive oversight of intelligence activities and programs.
  The committee has not been able to pass an authorization bill in the 
last 2 years, which means the work that has gone on in the committee 
cannot be reflected in guidance to the committee or in carrying out our 
oversight responsibilities.
  Some Members may recall, others have been informed, that 30 years ago 
the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was formed to address a 
serious problem. There had been a complete lack of congressional 
oversight of U.S. intelligence operations. Then when we reviewed the 
attacks of September 11, the findings of our committee and the findings 
of the 9/11 Commission confirmed that congressional oversight of 
intelligence was not what it should be.
  We firmly believe that enacting S. 372 will move us a long way in 
restoring the Senate's legitimate role in oversight of U.S. 
intelligence. I believe we must be in a position where we can assure 
our colleagues and the people of the United States that the 
intelligence activities necessarily conducted in secret do comply with 
the Constitution, the treaties and the laws of the United States and 
other mandates and limitations placed on the exercise of that secret 
power.
  Make no mistake about it, intelligence in this global war on terror, 
which has been declared on us by al-Qaida and other Islamic groups, is 
one that can only be countered with effective intelligence. 
Intelligence is the most important weapon we have in keeping our 
homeland safe and protecting U.S. interests and citizens abroad. We 
need to make sure it is done properly. We need to make sure it is done 
effectively.
  Having studied the intelligence community and having gone through 
exhaustive reviews over the last 4 years of shortcomings pointed out in 
the intelligence community operations, we believe we can work with the 
intelligence community and provide necessary legislative support to 
ensure that the intelligence activities not only are staying within the 
road lines--staying on the road in the path--but also being carried out 
effectively. That is why we feel it is tremendously important we pass 
this legislation.
  The chairman has pointed out there are concerns that have been voiced 
by the administration about this bill. To be candid, there are some 
provisions in the bill I do not favor or at least question. I hope in 
the amendment process and in the House-Senate conference we can develop 
a good bill that will be signed into law. But it is important to 
remember--and my colleagues who have expressed concerns particularly 
about the administration's objections should know--that what has been 
outlined by the chairman in the managers' amendment begins to deal with 
the major questions they have. The chairman and I have agreed it makes 
sense, for example, to declassify the top line number of the 
intelligence budget.
  I have talked with leaders in the intelligence community and I said: 
Does that cause you any problems? They said: No. It is only when you 
get below that. Were you to go down the slippery slope of disclosing 
amounts going into particular units or particular programs of the 
intelligence community, you give away vital secrets.
  This body has twice gone on record and was stated by the chairman and 
the 9/11 Commission has recommended disclosing the overall number so 
that the people of America will know whether we are continuing to 
support the intelligence community adequately, whether we are 
supporting it with the kinds of resources needed.
  In our managers' amendment, we took out a study that would purport to 
look at the possibility of declassifying further details, other than 
the top line. We both agreed that should be out. The administration 
also was concerned about identifying certain sites, and we agreed, and 
in our managers' amendment we will take out any reference or any 
requirement of identifying those certain sites. The administration also 
was concerned about the number of people, the manner of informing 
members of the committee about certain activities that were highly 
classified. We are working to remedy that. The administration also had 
concerns about getting reports filed, the potential for a large number 
of requests being dumped on the intelligence community, and we have 
dealt with that.

  So there are other items the administration has concerns about, and 
we may be able to address some of those here. We may be able to address 
some of those when we get to conference, if they still are not properly 
solved. But I would say one thing. The administration, like every 
administration, sometimes feels that congressional oversight goes 
further than they would like. Well, our job is to conduct oversight, 
and we do so with an aim of improving intelligence, the products that 
come out, and also ensuring that procedures are properly contained 
within the rules of the road, and we will continue to seek those 
legislative oversight tools.
  We are going to accommodate the reasonable concerns of the Executive 
in every instance that we can because we want to make sure we don't, 
either by overt or inadvertent action, compromise intelligence sources, 
intelligence methods, or other essential intelligence programs that are 
necessary for the safety of our homeland and the safety of our troops 
in the field.
  In addition to the measures contained in the managers' amendment, I 
have filed nine amendments, some of which overlap with the managers' 
amendment that we can discuss on the Senate floor. Some of these may be 
necessary to ameliorate and alleviate the administration's concerns. We 
were disadvantaged in filing this managers' amendment because the time 
that we had to do it was the time when most Members were out of 
Washington, DC, in their home State, which has led to some confusion.
  I hope everybody who had a first-degree amendment that they wanted 
filed was able to file it by 2:30. We hope we will be able to deal with 
those amendments, and also we look forward to a good, robust debate on 
the floor of the Senate.
  I hope we will have ready a description, at least for our side, of 
the provisions in the managers' amendment. Most of the concerns I have 
heard about this bill are concerns that should be alleviated by the 
managers' amendment, so I would ask all of my colleagues to read 
carefully the provisions in the managers' amendment to ensure that we 
have resolved those concerns.
  In addition, Senator Rockefeller and I are always willing to discuss 
with colleagues, in this unclassified setting, the unclassified 
portions and our reasoning for it. Our invitation to Members still 
stands; that if Members want to be briefed on classified portions of 
the intelligence bill or on matters that cannot be discussed on the 
Senate floor, we stand ready with our staffs to have briefings set up 
in the intelligence facilities to fill them in on questions that they 
may legitimately have.
  We will look forward to conducting the debate in the time ahead.
  I thank the Chair, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Moving America Forward

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, my distinguished counterpart, the Senator 
from

[[Page S4466]]

Kentucky, Senator McConnell, held a press conference at 2:30, talking 
about what the Senate has not accomplished this year. I, of course, am 
very disappointed in that because I thought we had done a lot. I 
believe we have produced.
  The minority talk a lot about their desire to see this Congress pass 
meaningful legislation. They talk a lot about supporting our troops. We 
have heard a lot from them about the need to defeat terrorists and make 
the country more secure. Their actions do not match their rhetoric. In 
far too many instances, our Republican colleagues say one thing and do 
another.
  Last week, the 110th Congress reached its 100th day. In that time, 
the Senate has passed a series of bills that would move our country 
forward. With bipartisan support, we passed the toughest lobbying 
ethics reform legislation in the entire history of our country. With 
bipartisan support, we voted to give working Americans a much deserved 
and long overdue raise in the minimum wage. With bipartisan support, we 
passed a continuing resolution that enacted tough spending limits and 
eliminated earmarks for this year. With bipartisan support, we passed 
every single recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, after it languished 
in the Republican-controlled Congress for 2\1/2\ years. With bipartisan 
support, we passed a responsible, balanced, pay-as-you-go budget that 
reduces taxes for working Americans and invests more in education, 
veterans, and health care. With bipartisan support, we passed 
legislation that would fully fund our troops while forcing the 
President to change course in Iraq. And, last week, with bipartisan 
support, once again, we passed legislation to open the promise of stem 
cell research in a responsible and ethical way.
  The American people want Congress to put petty bickering aside. This 
is exactly what I believe this Congress has done. It has not been easy. 
My Republican colleagues have, time and time again, allowed a small 
minority in their caucus to block progress that the American people, 
and a bipartisan majority of the Senate, demand. On every piece of 
legislation I mentioned, we have had to file cloture.
  Sadly, on the most important issue facing our country, national 
security, this has been especially apparent. The minority forced us to 
come up with 60 votes to pass the 9/11 Commission recommendations. They 
required the same for the Iraq supplemental bill.
  Now it appears this same group of Republicans will attempt to block 
passage of the Intelligence Authorization bill, the bill they wrote 
when they were in the majority but failed to pass for 2 years. As 
everyone knows, the Intelligence Authorization bill funds the operation 
of 16 agencies of the U.S. intelligence community, including the CIA, 
the FBI, the National Security Agency, the Defense Department, and all 
the critical work they do in fighting the war on terror. We are so 
fortunate that we have bipartisan cooperation of the management of the 
Intelligence Committee. Senator Rockefeller and Senator Bond have 
worked closely together. They want this legislation to move forward.
  This should not be a partisan issue. We had to vote to get 60 votes 
to proceed to the legislation. I said at that time, if you want to 
offer amendments while we are in the 30 hours postcloture time, do it. 
Now I am told the ability for us to get on the bill is going to be 
thwarted by not allowing us to have 60 votes.
  I was upstairs this afternoon in room 407, getting a briefing on 
issues that are important to our country. It is so important that we 
move forward on this legislation and support our people who are making 
America safe and secure and protecting our interests all around the 
world. Sixteen agencies, I repeat, of the U.S. intelligence community 
want this legislation passed.
  We are in a battle around the world on terrorism. Shouldn't our 
intelligence community be able to move forward with this legislation? I 
repeat: It was written by the Republicans. Why would they not let us go 
forward on this legislation? Is it because--I don't know. Is it because 
Vice President Cheney thinks he is going to lose a little of his power 
directing everything covert that goes on in the intelligence community? 
Is he the one stopping this? Why? Why can't we pass legislation that 
was written by the Republicans to improve our intelligence operations?
  This legislation includes essential initiatives that would improve 
our efforts to fight terrorism and control weapons of mass destruction, 
enhance our intelligence collection capabilities, and strengthen 
intelligence oversight. Does anybody dispute that? For 27 years, since 
we first started doing an Intelligence bill, we passed it every year. 
But not the last 2 years. Blocking passage of the bill leaves Congress 
silent on these important matters, dealing with terrorism, weapons of 
mass destruction, intelligence collection capabilities, and 
intelligence oversight. It is so important to pass this bill. This is 
not a partisan issue. I don't think there are political points to be 
scored on either side.
  I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will let this 
legislation go forward. We have a managers' amendment that Senator 
Rockefeller and Senator Bond worked on that would be accepted. I cannot 
imagine why we would be stopped on an Intelligence authorization. I 
have been told that the word is out, the Republicans are not going to 
support cloture on this most important bill.

  My friend, the distinguished Republican leader, pointed out this 
afternoon that we filed cloture a number of times this year. We surely 
have. We surely have, because there has been a minority of people on 
the other side who forced us to do this. The bills we passed have been 
bipartisan: Ethics/lobbying reform got a big bipartisan vote; minimum 
wage, big bipartisan vote; the continuing resolution, a big bipartisan 
vote--we had to do that to fund the Government--the 9/11 Commission 
recommendations, big bipartisan vote; stem cell, big bipartisan vote; 
the supplemental, a bipartisan vote. Sure, we have had to file cloture 
because there has been a minority of Senators on the other side who 
forced us to do that on these bipartisan bills.
  My friend, the minority leader, is right, we have filed cloture a 
number of times. The fact is, his side forced us to do so rather than 
let us proceed directly to these bills--and this bill. We have been 
forced to jump through a number of procedural hoops designed to block 
legislation that enjoyed bipartisan support.
  I will continue to do that. I understand the rights of just a few 
Senators and if a few Senators want to stop us from moving forward, 
that is fine. But to think that we couldn't get 10 Republicans to 
support us on a motion to invoke cloture on an Intelligence 
authorization bill? That is beyond my ability to comprehend, why the 
Republicans would stop us from moving forward on an Intelligence 
authorization bill. I have said they can offer amendments to the bill. 
Even though I thought it was absolutely wrong that we had to vote 
cloture on the motion to proceed, I said, during the 30 hours, if you 
want to offer amendments, go ahead and do so. ``No.''
  This is not ethics reform, it is not minimum wage, it is not stem 
cell research, it is not the continuing resolution--it is the ability 
of our intelligence agencies to do their work: the CIA, FBI, NSA, 
Defense Department. I urge the minority to not stop this bill from 
going forward. The vote is at 5:30. But that is what I am told is going 
to happen. Their actions, if in fact they follow through on this, are 
not in the best interests of the American people. Anyone who has been 
told that they are being stymied from offering amendments is not being 
told the truth.
  We will continue to work in a bipartisan manner to move our country 
forward. The bills that passed this body so far this year have been 
bipartisan, with overwhelming support, and, yes, we did have to file 
cloture because a small number of people held us up from moving on this 
most important piece of legislation.
  I hope there will be people who will move away from this madding 
crowd who will not allow us to help these agencies do their work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from Virginia.


                         Virginia Tech Massacre

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am joined on the floor by my 
distinguished colleague, Senator Webb. We wish to address the Senate, 
indeed speak with all America, for we Virginians have

[[Page S4467]]

suffered today one of the most grievous incidents ever to occur in our 
State or, indeed, in America.
  I speak to the tragic loss of life and tragic injury of so many 
students and faculty at the distinguished and venerable institution of 
Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, VA.
  All America joins to mourn these young people whose lives of promise 
have been cut so short, and those injured as they, hopefully and 
prayerfully, recover from their wounds. I must say, I have been 
privileged to serve in this institution for many years. I served in 
many other posts of public service in my lifetime. This tragedy, this 
tragedy is an incomprehensible situation, an incomprehensible, 
senseless act of violence.
  In time, be it days or weeks, Americans will learn more about the 
circumstances of today in Blacksburg, VA. For now, however, and forever 
after, our hearts and our prayers are with the victims, their families, 
and the other students and faculty at Virginia Tech and, indeed, their 
families.
  Virginians are proud of this historic university. I have known it all 
my lifetime and how it has served our State and Nation for nearly a 
century and a half as an exemplary institution of learning, one that 
has contributed many fine young men and women to the Armed Forces of 
our United States.
  For the moment, I simply close by saying that the historic and proud 
tradition of Virginia Tech will carry on. Our State embraces them as 
does all America. We will work with them to make sure they can carry 
on.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia, Mr. Webb, is 
recognized.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would like to thank the senior Senator 
from Virginia for having taken the initiative to bring this matter 
briefly to the floor today as we consider other issues.
  As we have learned more facts about this incident during the time 
that I was presiding over the Senate, I am sure that over the next day 
or so we are going to learn a lot more that will help us understand, 
perhaps, how this incredibly tragic incident occurred.
  We will have time to reach out to the grieving families and hopefully 
begin to heal ourselves and to again regain the confidence and the 
respect of the people who go to that institution. But I thank the 
senior Senator for bringing this matter to the floor. I want to 
associate myself fully with his comments. There is very little I can 
add in terms of describing the depth of our feelings and our regret 
over the fact that this incident has occurred.
  It is an incredible human tragedy. As I said, there will be, I am 
sure, many stories over the coming days about how it occurred and the 
implications of it. But it is very fitting for us to pause for a few 
moments as we consider all of these other issues that are on the table, 
some of them which obviously divide us by party, but certainly on an 
issue such as this we are all together in extending our compassion and 
our regrets to the families of those who are involved.
  This is a great institution. The lives that were lost today were of 
those people who had in their early days demonstrated an enormous 
amount of promise, and we again express our regrets to the families and 
our determination that we will help the people of the community around 
Virginia Tech regain the sense of purpose and vitality once we reach 
more understanding of what happened.
  Again, I thank the senior Senator and I thank you, Mr. President, for 
allowing us to stop for a few moments in business today to mention this 
incident.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, is 
recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. We do recognize, 
both of us, our gratitude to the bipartisan leadership of this 
institution in opening today's session with a prayer and a moment of 
silence to honor the victims; not only the victims involved but those 
at this great university and throughout the State.
  I also thank our Governor. Our Governor is en route quickly returning 
from a trip to Japan. He has been in contact and received a call from 
the President of the United States, George Bush. We have talked with 
his chief of staff throughout the day and have waited until this time, 
until such facts have been gathered, the few that are known about this 
tragedy, before addressing the Senate.
  I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, before the two Senators from the 
Commonwealth of Virginia leave the floor, let me express to them our 
sympathy and sorrow over the tremendous tragedy suffered in their State 
today.
  A member of my staff has a son who attends this fine institution. 
Fortunately, she has learned that he is fine, but you can imagine her 
anxiety as she was waiting to hear from her son and had the television 
on hearing the reports.
  I say to both of the Senators from Virginia that our hearts go out to 
them, to the members of this fine institution in Virginia, and to those 
who are affected by this terrible violence.
  Before I turned to the issue that has brought me to the Senate floor, 
I just want to extend my condolences on behalf of the people of Maine 
to the people of Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, is 
recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and dear friend from 
Maine. I thank other colleagues who have spoken to me and to my 
distinguished colleague, Senator Webb. We thank the Senate for its 
compassion in this matter. Each Senator feels deeply that it could have 
happened, I suppose, this sort of tragic situation, in any State in the 
Union. So we are all sharing this tragic moment in the life of America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, can the Chair inform me of whether there 
is an amendment pending at the current time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Only the managers' substitute.


                 Amendment No. 847 to Amendment No. 843

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 847, which is 
pending at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for herself, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Mr. Carper, Mr. Coleman, and Mr. Akaka, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 847 to amendment No. 843.

  Ms. COLLINS. 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:

  (Purpose: To reaffirm the constitutional and statutory protections 
         accorded sealed domestic mail, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO CONSTITUTIONAL AND 
                   STATUTORY PROTECTIONS ACCORDED SEALED DOMESTIC 
                   MAIL.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) all Americans depend on the United States Postal 
     Service to transact business and communicate with friends and 
     family;
       (2) postal customers have a constitutional right to expect 
     that their sealed domestic mail will be protected against 
     unreasonable searches;
       (3) the circumstances and procedures under which the 
     Government may search sealed mail are well defined, including 
     provisions under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 
     1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and generally require prior 
     judicial approval;
       (4) the United States Postal Inspection Service has the 
     authority to open and search a sealed envelope or package 
     when there is immediate threat to life or limb or an 
     immediate and substantial danger to property;
       (5) the United States Postal Service affirmed January 4, 
     2007, that the enactment of the Postal Accountability and 
     Enhancement Act (Public Law 109-435) does not grant Federal 
     law enforcement officials any new authority to open domestic 
     mail;
       (6) questions have been raised about these basic privacy 
     protections following issuance of the President's signing 
     statement on the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act 
     (Public Law 109-435); and
       (7) the Senate rejects any interpretation of the 
     President's signing statement on the Postal Accountability 
     and Enhancement Act (Public Law 109-435) that in any way 
     diminishes the privacy protections accorded sealed

[[Page S4468]]

     domestic mail under the Constitution and Federal laws and 
     regulations.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     Congress reaffirms the constitutional and statutory 
     protections accorded sealed domestic mail.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am calling up this amendment on behalf 
of myself, Senator Lieberman, Senator Carper, Senator Coleman, and 
Senator Akaka.
  Our bipartisan amendment reaffirms the fundamental constitutional and 
statutory protections accorded to sealed domestic mail, even as we make 
provisions for sustaining our vital intelligence-gathering activity in 
the interests of advancing the goals of protecting our homeland from 
attack.
  I am very pleased to have the distinguished chairman of the Senate 
Homeland Security Committee, Senator Lieberman, as a cosponsor, as well 
as Senator Carper of Delaware, who was the coauthor with me of the 
postal reform legislation that passed and was signed into law last 
year.
  Senator Coleman and Senator Akaka have also been very active on 
postal issues. I have also had the opportunity to talk with the 
distinguished chairman and the ranking member of the Intelligence 
Committee about this proposal.
  For those who may not have followed this issue, let me first provide 
some brief background. On December 20, President Bush signed into law 
the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act that Senator Carper and I 
introduced last year. This new law makes the most sweeping changes in 
the Postal Service in more than 30 years.
  The act will help the Postal Service meet the challenges of the 21st 
century, establish a new rate-setting system, help ensure a stronger 
financial future for the Postal Service, provide more stability and 
predictability in rates, and protect the basic features of universal 
service.
  One of the act's many provisions provides continued authority for the 
Postal Service to establish a class of mail sealed against inspection.
  Now, let me make very clear, this is not new authority. This is a 
continuation of authority that the Postal Service already has.
  Regrettably, on the day that he signed the Postal Reform Act into 
law, the President also issued a signing statement which has created 
some confusion about the continued protection of sealed domestic mail. 
He construed that particular provision in our bill to permit ``searches 
in exigent circumstances, such as to protect life and safety.''
  Now, since that time, the President's spokesman has made very clear 
that the President's signing statement was not intended in any way to 
change the scope of the current law. But the statement caused confusion 
and concern about the President's commitment to abide by the basic 
privacy protections afforded sealed domestic mail. For some, it raised 
the specter of the Government unlawfully monitoring our mail in the 
name of national security.
  Given this unfortunate and inaccurate perception, I wish to be very 
clear, as the author of the postal reform legislation; nothing in the 
Postal Reform Act nor in the President's signing statement in any way 
alters the privacy and civil liberty protections provided to a person 
who sends or receives sealed mail.
  In fact, the President's signing statement appears to do nothing more 
than restate current law. By issuing the signing statement, however, 
the President, unfortunately, generated questions about the 
administration's intent.

  I am confident the administration does not intend to interpret the 
law differently or change the constitutional or statutory protections. 
But, unfortunately, this is the case, again, of where the President 
stepped forward and issued a signing statement, upon signing this bill 
into law, that has created concern and confusion where none existed 
before. I think it is unfortunate the President did so.
  Under current law, mail sealed against inspection is entitled to 
constitutional protection against unreasonable searches. With only 
limited exceptions, the Government needs a court warrant before it can 
search sealed mail. This is true whether the search is conducted to 
gather evidence under our Criminal Code or to collect foreign 
intelligence information under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act of 1978, perhaps better known as the FISA Act.
  Exceptions to the warrant requirements of the fourth amendment are 
limited. When there is an immediate danger to life or limb or an 
immediate and substantial danger to property, then the Postal Service 
can search a domestic sealed letter or package without a warrant. Let 
me give you examples of what we are talking about. What we are talking 
about when we are talking about immediate threats could include wires 
protruding from a package that gives one the reasonable belief there 
may be a bomb inside. Another example might be odors or stains that 
indicate the presence of a hazardous material.
  Americans depend upon the U.S. Postal Service to transact business 
and to communicate with friends and family. If there is any doubt in 
the public's mind that the Federal Government is not protecting the 
constitutional privacy accorded their mail, if there is a suspicion 
that the Government is unlawfully opening mail, then our people's 
confidence in the sanctity of our mail system and even in our 
Government itself will be undermined.
  That is why I have joined my colleagues in offering this amendment 
today. It makes clear to all law-abiding Americans that the Federal 
Government will not invade their privacy by reading their sealed mail, 
absent a court order or exigent circumstances. Any contrary 
interpretation of the Postal Reform Act is just plain wrong. I think it 
is important that the Senate go on record affirming this basic 
constitutional privacy--statutory privacy, as well--that Americans have 
always counted on.
  Our amendment will do nothing to weaken the vital protections we have 
created against terrorist attacks, but it will remove any doubt that 
our fundamental protections of privacy rights have in some way been 
weakened by the signing statement that, unfortunately, the President 
chose to issue.
  So I urge my colleagues to remove any doubt, to make it clear that 
the new law, on which we worked so hard for 3 years and which was 
signed into law last December, does not change this in any way.
  Again, I thank the chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the 
ranking member for their willingness to discuss this issue.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, first, I see the distinguished chairman of 
the committee and the vice chairman of the committee on the floor. I 
commend both of them for their excellent work on this legislation. I 
particularly wish to commend Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman 
Bond for the bipartisan approach the two of them have brought to 
tackling these important issues in this session of the Senate.
  It is extremely important that intelligence is conducted in a 
bipartisan fashion and the chairman and vice chairman have set a model 
in terms of approaching these issues in that fashion.
  In the 1970s, Members of Congress realized there was not nearly 
enough oversight of our Nation's spy agencies, and this lack of 
oversight led to a number of serious abuses. In response to the abuses, 
the Senate created the Select Committee on Intelligence, on which I am 
proud to serve. Each year, for 29 straight years, our committee has 
produced an intelligence authorization bill, and this annual 
legislation has given Congress a means by which to exercise oversight 
of the classified intelligence budget and provide guidance to the 
Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, and various 
other important intelligence agencies.
  In 2005 and 2006, regrettably, the Congress failed to pass the 
Intelligence authorization legislation. In my view, this is 
inexcusable. At a time when

[[Page S4469]]

Americans were questioning our intelligence agencies' ability to keep 
them safe, the Congress failed to provide the necessary support. At a 
time when the intelligence community was undergoing major 
reorganization, Congress failed to provide sufficient guidance. At a 
time when our allies and our own citizens were raising serious 
questions about our detention policies, the Congress failed to conduct 
oversight. At a time when Americans were opening their morning papers 
and reading about the aggressive new forms of Government surveillance, 
such as the President's warrantless wiretapping program, the Congress 
failed to demand accountability.
  The committee did report Intelligence authorization bills for fiscal 
years 2006 and 2007, but they were blocked repeatedly by anonymous 
holds. Regrettably, the previous leadership failed to make passing this 
legislation a top priority. The new leadership of the Senate has 
decided that ensuring national security and protecting Americans' 
rights and values is a major concern and, as a result, we are now 
dealing with this year's Intelligence Authorization Act, and it comes, 
in my view, to a great extent because of the cooperation of Chairman 
Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond, who has also assisted me in a 
number of critical areas throughout this session of the Senate, for 
which I am very appreciative.
  This legislation contains a number of important provisions which I am 
proud to have worked on with my colleagues on the committee. It 
clarifies many of the authorities of the Director of National 
Intelligence, establishes a new national space intelligence center, and 
creates a strong independent inspector general for the intelligence 
community. It strengthens congressional oversight by clarifying the 
President's responsibility to keep the Congress informed of all 
intelligence activities. In addition, it contains three amendments that 
I offered and that I believe are going to improve the functioning of 
our intelligence agencies.
  The first of these amendments would make public the total amount of 
the national intelligence budget. In my view, it is ridiculous to 
suggest that Osama bin Laden is going to gain some sort of advantage 
from knowing that the national intelligence budget is one specific 
number or another. But declassifying this number would increase, in my 
view, transparency and public accountability. It would increase public 
accountability without sacrificing the national security needs of this 
country and also permit a more informed debate about funding for 
defense and national security.
  The second of these amendments which I offered with the distinguished 
chairman of the committee, Senator Rockefeller, would increase 
resources to support the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United 
States. After investigating the proposed takeover of the management of 
several United States ports by Dubai Ports World, I became convinced 
that the process for approving these foreign purchases did not include 
sufficient due diligence. There ought to be more room in this process 
for input from the intelligence community, and these additional 
resources that have come about as a result of this amendment I 
developed with Chairman Rockefeller would support that.
  The last of these amendments would maximize the criminal penalty for 
knowingly and intentionally disclosing the identity of a covert agent. 
Like many Americans, I was shocked and disappointed to learn that 
members of the administration exposed the identity of an undercover CIA 
officer for partisan political purposes. Undercover officers perform a 
vital and demanding service for the Nation, and the very nature of 
their work prevents them from receiving public praise or recognition. 
Deliberately exposing an undercover officer for any reason, in my view, 
is unacceptable, and to do it for a political purpose is simply 
reprehensible. This provision will send a message to men and women of 
the CIA and other human intelligence services that the Congress values 
them and their work and takes any threat to them or to their identity 
very seriously.
  I also note that the version of this legislation that was reported by 
the Intelligence Committee also creates a new exemption to the Privacy 
Act. In the additional views to the committee report, Senator Feingold 
and I expressed our view that the impact of this provision had not been 
considered carefully enough. I am pleased the managers' amendment 
prepared by Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond removes this 
provision and, in my view, that is going to make our conference with 
the House of Representatives easier.
  In sum, I am pleased with the work--the bipartisan work--our 
committee put into this legislation, and I hope the Senate will support 
cloture this afternoon. This is extremely important legislation. It 
ought to be passed on a bipartisan basis. It should not be subject to a 
filibuster. Congress has surrendered its national security 
responsibilities for too long and too often, and it is time for the 
Congress to stand up and do its job.
  Chairman Rockefeller and Senator Bond have made it possible for the 
Senate Intelligence Committee to bring this legislation before the 
Senate. I am very hopeful this legislation will move forward today and 
that the Senate will support cloture.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his kind 
comments. As I said earlier today, we are most grateful to the 
leadership for having brought up S. 372. This is a very important and 
necessary first step for the Senate to return to its responsibility of 
conducting oversight of U.S. intelligence activities and programs. 
Enacting S. 372 into law will help restore the Senate's legitimate role 
in oversight of U.S. intelligence.
  As I said, the administration has voiced some concerns about 
provisions in the bill, and the chairman and I have made a good-faith 
attempt to address those concerns. We have a managers' amendment, plus 
several other amendments on which the chairman and I agree that we 
think are legitimate and measured modifications that don't change the 
basic purpose of our provisions but meet some of their objections.
  As I said before, there are provisions in the bill that we do believe 
need such changes. Should any Member, however, feel we have not gone 
far enough, we invite them to come to the floor and join in the debate.
  Is S. 372 perfect? I have never seen a piece of legislation that was 
and don't expect to see one. That being said, we should all remember 
that the perfect is the enemy of the good. There is no such thing as 
perfect legislation. We can today, however, begin the process of 
improving our oversight with a good piece of legislation.
  Again, will the administration agree with everything in the bill? No. 
On the other hand, I do not remember many times in my political career 
when any executive branch has invited the legislative branch, 
Congress--or a State legislature with which I am also familiar--to 
conduct rigorous oversight of its actions and policies.
  Unfortunately for executive branch officials, that is our 
constitutional role as laid down by the Founding Fathers. It does not 
mean we will refuse to accommodate the executive branch's legitimate 
concerns. After all, the President does have the power to veto any 
legislation that he feels unduly intrudes upon his authority.
  In an effort to ensure the administration's concerns are addressed, I 
have filed an additional nine amendments to S. 372, some of which 
overlap with the managers' amendment the chairman and I have presented. 
I believe the chairman and I are in agreement on almost all of these 
amendments, if not all of them. Through that process, I think we can 
alleviate the concerns the administration has with the bill.
  I am concerned, however, that the process by which we had to draft 
the managers' amendment, combined with the fact that the preparation 
had to be undertaken largely when Members were in their home State, has 
led to some confusion among our colleagues. That is why we are handing 
out a one-page summary that I hope all Members will review so they 
understand how this measure has been changed. We will be happy to talk 
with them privately or discuss it with them on the floor, and our 
staffs are available to work with their staffs if they have any other 
concerns.

[[Page S4470]]

  I also want to make it clear to all of my colleagues that I support 
full and open debate on S. 372 and the timely consideration of all 
germane amendments. We ask that the amendments be germane. We would 
have great difficulty in conferencing this bill on nongermane 
amendments and the possibility that they would be accepted in the final 
report I would say is doubtful. If confusion over the amendment filing 
process has prevented any Senator from getting a germane amendment 
considered, I will certainly work with that Member to see if we could 
get the amendment brought to the floor for consideration.

  Again, I thank my chairman who has worked in a very cooperative 
manner. We are seeking to achieve a good bipartisan consensus on how we 
in this body exercise our very important constitutional role of 
providing oversight for a critically important factor in our 
responsibility, and that is oversight and legislation with respect to 
the national intelligence program and the intelligence community which 
administers it.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, in essence, what I will do is 
repeat what my valued and distinguished vice chairman said. It is a 
fact of life. The vice chairman and I have both been Governors. It is a 
fact of life that Governors don't like to have oversight. They don't 
get it. The legislatures don't get it. They get it by the people every 
4 years.
  It is a little different here. The President sends legislation. We 
look at it. It gets passed or not. But the country is so huge, and 
there are innumerable problems, none of which are more important than 
the national security. It is incredibly important not just to take the 
President's decision and assume that it is right. Maybe that works at 
the State level, but it doesn't work here.
  We have an absolutely sacred obligation--and in this case a life-and-
death obligation--to review, to do oversight, to ask questions, to call 
people in and to have closed hearings. We have endless numbers of 
closed hearings which are attended by members of the committee. 
Suddenly, this committee has come together, it is alive, and this sense 
of oversight is felt and appreciated by the intelligence community.
  This single sheet of paper which every single Member will get when 
they come to the Chamber shows how Vice Chairman Bond and I, working 
together as we always do, made five major amendments to try to 
accommodate the administration with respect to the managers' amendment, 
which is the pending amendment. We worked those through very carefully, 
we agreed upon them, and they are now before us.
  Then there is a separate list of five more individual amendments 
where we try to be responsible and responsive. That is all we can do.
  The great sadness to this Senator over the past several years has 
been the inability of the Intelligence Committee to do oversight. That 
is our obligation. We need to know what is happening. There are certain 
areas which become so sensitive that it may be that only the vice 
chairman and I can be informed. People grumble about that, and so be 
it. That is national security protection. But we have to know what is 
going on, and that is the purpose of this legislation.
  It has been a long time coming. The majority leader has spoken to 
that point. I recommend to my colleagues who come to the Chamber to 
vote that they take a look at this paper.
  We have worked to try to accommodate the administration's objections. 
I am sure we have not accommodated all of them, but we have addressed 
some important ones without in any way interfering with our ability to 
do proper oversight.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, will the Senator yield to me, without 
losing his right to the floor, to make an announcement of some 
importance?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Yes.


              Postponement of Judiciary Committee Hearing

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I just arrived back in Washington about 
an hour ago. I was on a flight for a number of hours and heard the 
horrific news of the tragedy at Virginia Tech. We had scheduled 
tomorrow morning before the Senate Judiciary Committee a hearing with 
Attorney General Gonzales. I have discussed this with the ranking 
member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, my friend Senator Arlen 
Specter of Pennsylvania, and I called the Attorney General and spoke to 
him. All three of us agree--and they agree with my proposal--that we 
will postpone that hearing.
  The hearing with the Attorney General will not be held tomorrow. We 
will postpone it until Thursday. The exact time we are working out. The 
Attorney General certainly was agreeable to that. I am sure he would 
want to be dealing with the matters of the shooting. Both Senator 
Specter and I felt this is a matter where our whole Nation is going to 
be grieving tomorrow and many individual Members in both bodies will be 
joining in that grieving and that concern for the families, for the 
victims of this horrible, horrible tragedy.
  So the Judiciary Committee, I have decided, will not hold its 
hearing. It will be held Thursday.
  I thank my friend from West Virginia for yielding to me so I could 
make that announcement.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I thank the Senator and yield to 
the Senator from Massachusetts such time as he may require.


             EXPRESSION OF SORROW FOR VIRGINIA TECH TRAGEDY

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, with a heavy heart, I rise to express 
my tremendous sorrow for the growing number of victims impacted by a 
terrible tragedy on a Virginia college campus today.
  My deepest condolences and prayers go out to the students, faculty 
and their families at the Virginia Tech campus who have been affected 
by this horrific crime, especially those who lost loved ones.
  The Nation is stunned by the loss of so many young lives. The tragedy 
is felt all the more because these were young people--children in the 
prime of their lives, with so much to offer--and who gave so much to 
their families-- and now they are gone. They were sons and daughters, 
brothers and sisters, friends and neighbors. They were a part of all of 
us--and we will feel their loss. There will be time to debate the steps 
needed to avert such tragedies. But today our thoughts and prayers go 
to their families.
  Today, the world weeps for the victims at Virginia Tech. Our thoughts 
and prayers are with you.
  I thank the good Senator from West Virginia.

                          ____________________