[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19493-19499]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE REFORM ACT OF 2004

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 2845, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2845) to reform the intelligence community and 
     the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the 
     U.S. Government, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       McCain amendment No. 3702, to add title VII of S. 2774, 9/
     11 Commission Report Implementation Act, related to 
     transportation security.
       Wyden amendment No. 3704, to establish an Independent 
     National Security Classification Board in the executive 
     branch.
       Collins amendment No. 3705, to provide for homeland 
     security grant coordination and simplification.


                           Amendment No. 3705

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, last evening, on behalf of myself, 
Senator Carper, and Senator Lieberman, I offered an amendment to 
rewrite the formula for the Homeland Security Grant Program. The 
amendment we brought before the Senate was unanimously reported as a 
separate bill by the Governmental Affairs Committee.
  We should always keep in mind that should there be another terrorist 
attack on our country, people will be calling 911; they will not be 
calling the Washington, DC, area code. It is our first responders--our 
firefighters, our police officers, our emergency medical personnel--who 
are always on the scene first. We know that from the tragic attacks of 
9/11, and, as Secretary Ridge has pointed out many times, homeland 
security starts with the security of our hometowns. For this reason, we 
have come together in a bipartisan way, representing large States and 
small States, to draft the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act, and 
we have offered it as an amendment to this bill. It would streamline 
and strengthen the assistance we provide to our States, communities, 
and first responders who protect our homeland.
  The underlying Homeland Security Act contains virtually no guidance 
on how the Department of Homeland Security is to assist State and local 
governments with their homeland security needs. In fact, the 187-page 
Homeland Security Act mentions the issue of grants to first responders 
in but a single paragraph. The decisions on how Federal dollars should 
be spent or how much money should be allocated to home were left to 
another day when Congress enacted that important legislation, but it is 
now time for Congress to finally address this critical issue.
  We know that much of the burden for homeland security has fallen on 
the shoulders of State and local officials across America, those who 
are truly on the front lines. In crafting the amendment before us, the 
Governmental Affairs Committee listened first and foremost to our first 
responders. We held three hearings on this vital topic and negotiated 
for 2 years to produce the amendment that Senator Carper, Senator 
Lieberman, and I are offering. The bipartisan measure was approved by 
the Governmental Affairs Committee by a 16-to-0 vote, and it currently 
has 29 cosponsors, including the distinguished Presiding Officer.
  There are several groups that are active with first responders who 
are supporting our legislation. They include the National Governor's 
Association, Advocates for EMS, National Council of State Legislators, 
Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the 
National League of Cities, and the Fraternal Order of Police.
  As you can see, Mr. President, our approach has widespread support. 
It is supported by Senators from big States, such as Michigan and 
Ohio--and I want to particularly commend the Senators from those States 
for their hard work on this legislation--and small States, such as my 
home State of Maine and the State of the Senator from Delaware.
  The wide breadth of support demonstrates the balanced approach our

[[Page 19494]]

amendment takes to homeland security funding. It recognizes that 
threat-based funding is a critical part of homeland security funding. 
It does so by almost tripling the homeland security funding awarded 
based on threat and risk. This has been a particular concern to Senator 
Clinton, who has brought this issue before the Senate a couple of 
times.
  The amendment, however, also recognizes that first responders in each 
and every State are on the front lines and have needs. Therefore, the 
bill maintains a minimum allocation for each State.
  The legislation will also improve the coordination and the 
administration of homeland security funding by promoting one-stop 
shopping for homeland security funding opportunities. It establishes a 
clearinghouse to assist first responders and State and local 
governments in accessing homeland security grant information and other 
resources within the new department. This clearinghouse will help 
improve access to information, coordinate technical assistance for 
vulnerability and threat assessments, provide information regarding 
homeland security best practices, and compile information regarding 
homeland security equipment purchased with Federal funds.
  Establishment of these improvements will mean first responders can 
spend more time training to save lives and less time filling out 
unnecessary paperwork.
  This amendment will establish a fair and balanced approach to 
allocating this critical funding. I am very pleased to have worked with 
the Senator from Delaware on this and I yield to him for any comments 
he might have, unless, of course, the ranking member would like to 
speak first.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the recognition. Senator 
Collins and I have to go a short walk to a meeting, so I take this 
opportunity and use it briefly to rise in support of the Collins-Carper 
amendment submitted by the chairman of the committee and the 
distinguished Senator from Delaware, who worked very hard on this very 
important topic and area before the 9/11 Commission Report was assigned 
to the Governmental Affairs Committee.
  This is an important addition to the National Intelligence Reform 
Act, the underlying proposal that came out of our committee last week, 
because it would help ensure that in these dangerous times the needs of 
our States and local first responders are met in a reasonable and 
coordinated way.
  In the past 3 years since September 11, beginning on September 11, 
our first responders and preventers have made real progress in boosting 
America's preparedness to deal with the threat of terrorism. But as an 
independent task force of the Council on Foreign Relations found last 
year: the United States has not reached a sufficient national level of 
emergency preparedness and remains dangerously unprepared to handle 
catastrophic attack on American soil--dangerously unprepared. That I 
take to refer particularly not to the law enforcers, who are the first 
preventers, but to the capacity of our total response system at the 
local and State level to respond to a catastrophic attack.
  This amendment, unanimously approved by a total nonpartisan vote in 
our committee, is an important first step in ensuring that our local 
first responders get the resources they need. First, this amendment 
simplifies the existing homeland security grant process by creating an 
interagency committee to coordinate Federal requirements for homeland 
security planning and reporting, and it eliminates redundancies. It 
would establish a clearinghouse to offer local communities one-stop 
shopping for information on available Federal grants.
  Second and most important, this amendment would reform the way 
homeland security grant money is currently distributed.
  In crafting these funding provisions, the committee acted consistent 
with the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission to significantly 
increase the amount of homeland security funding distributed based on 
threats but, the judgment we reached, not to eliminate a minimum amount 
to go to every State. The reason for that is unfortunately the reality 
of the terrorist threat and the nature of our terrorist enemies. Yes, 
they have shown they will strike at visible national symbols, that to 
some extent they will focus on big cities, but the fact is that anyone 
who pays attention to the terrorist mode of operating around the world 
will see what they also do is to strike at unpredictable, undefended, 
vulnerable targets.
  Remember, these people do not hold themselves to any rules of 
civilized or humane behavior, so they have no hesitancy to put a bomb 
on a bus occupied by families, men, women, children; to attack a school 
and wantonly slaughter children, in some cases their teachers. In a 
reality such as this, gruesome and chilling as it is, the fact is every 
part of America needs some help from the Federal Government in getting 
itself prepared to prevent and respond, and that is exactly what this 
amendment would do.
  I continue to believe that this part of our own domestic army of 
preventers and responders in the war on terrorism is not adequately 
funded. This amendment does not of itself change that, but it does 
represent a sensible bipartisan approach and goes a long way to 
ensuring that whatever funding we do provide--and I hope that number 
will increase--is allocated in a manner that is best designed to 
protect all of the American people.
  I thank Senator Collins and Senator Carper for the extraordinary work 
they did on this issue in our committee. Senator Carper, characteristic 
of himself, took hold of a complicated problem with difficult political 
ramifications to it but a real critical national need attached to it 
and worked very hard to bring about this result, which I feel very 
strongly deserves the overwhelming support of Members of the Senate.
  I thank the chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, before the Senator from Delaware makes 
his comments, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Minnesota, 
Mr. Coleman, be added as a cosponsor to the underlying bill, S. 2845, 
and that he also be added as a cosponsor to the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota has been one 
of our most diligent committee members in attending all of the hearings 
we held throughout the August recess. He was an active member of the 
committee throughout the debate on this legislation, and I am very 
grateful to have his support and cosponsorship.
  I say to the Senator from Connecticut that I think along with the 
cosponsorships we picked up yesterday, this is a sign that as people 
look at our legislation and learn more about it, it is gaining even 
more support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, before the chairman of our committee and 
Senator Lieberman head for their meeting, I want to say in plain view 
of everyone how proud I am of the leadership they have provided to our 
committee. At a time when much of Washington, DC, was taking the month 
of August off, they made sure that our committee did not. At a time 
when most Senators were scattered around the world, the country, and 
back in their own States, they made sure we were here, and not just for 
any purpose but to participate in a series of excellent hearings.
  I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, we have had a total of eight 
hearings thus far in the last month on this subject, from all kinds of 
people within the CIA, folks who have been National Security Advisers, 
Secretaries of Defense, Secretaries of State, Secretaries of Homeland 
Security. We have heard from the Commissioners themselves, the cochairs 
of the Commission, and from their senior staff. It has been an 
extraordinary education. It

[[Page 19495]]

has taken me a while to get my arms around these issues. As we finished 
our markup, I said to both Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman that a 
lot had not been clear to me as we went through the course of those 
hearings, but as we went through the course of the markup a number of 
issues, questions that had not been in focus for me, came into focus.
  I thank you for providing this extraordinary month and a half for us 
to prepare to offer this package to our colleagues in the Senate. You 
have done really good work. We are proud of you.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Thank you.
  Ms. COLLINS. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. CARPER. I am happy to yield.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator for his generous comments. I know 
Senator Lieberman joins me in commending the Senator from Delaware for 
his active participation in our hearings. I believe the Senator from 
Delaware, as the Senator from Minnesota, made an extraordinary effort 
to be there, to question the witnesses, and all of us now quote the 
Senator from Delaware in various places and occasions, in reminding our 
colleagues that:

       The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.

  Those words have become inexorably linked to the debate on 
intelligence reform. We thank the Senator for that as well.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, the record should show those words should 
not be directly attributed to me. They are actually the words of a 
recently departed minister, Methodist minister from our State, Brooks 
Reynolds, who would have been 89 years old on election day. He used to 
give the opening prayer at the Delaware General Assembly. We would 
convene every January. Among the things he would say to all of us who 
would gather there in Dover in the legislative hall:

       The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.

  With respect to the underlying legislation, we have done a good job 
of doing that. What we have come up with is legislation that I think is 
well designed to ensure that key decisionmakers--be it the President or 
the President's Cabinet, those of us who serve in the House and Senate, 
those who serve in the intelligence communities themselves--that we 
have the information we need to have, we have it in a timely way, and 
that we have the information objectively. That will enable us to better 
protect this country from terrorism in the 21st century. That is the 
main thing, and I believe the legislation before us today really does 
help us keep the main thing the main thing.
  I wish to say a word or two, if I may today, about the amendment 
Senator Collins and I have offered. It seeks to address the issue of 
how to allocate funds to first responders, and to also enable the 
system of distribution that we have to move forward with a little less 
difficulty, a bit more smoothly, and maybe somewhat more efficiently.
  First, I wish to say how much I have enjoyed working with Senator 
Collins. We have worked on it well over a year, and to express thanks 
to my staff and especially to John Kilvington on my staff for the great 
work he has done with me and with Senator Collins's team.
  What we seek to do with this amendment before us today, I say to my 
colleagues, is to make a series of much needed reforms to the state of 
the Homeland Security Grant Program. As many of my colleagues are 
aware, funding under the State Homeland Security Grant Program today is 
distributed somewhat arbitrarily. Much of the money that is made 
available for grants each year is distributed on a per capita basis. It 
is based on a formula that is actually included in the PATRIOT Act.
  Some have criticized our current homeland security grant formula 
saying it shortchanges larger States such as New York that are at the 
most risk for attack. I agree. No one here, though, disputes the fact 
that States such as New York and California deserve the biggest share 
of Federal funds.
  But let me say clearly that funding should not be based on population 
alone. This may come as a surprise to some of you from big States such 
as Minnesota or Wyoming, but my home State of Delaware is not very big 
but we still have major vulnerabilities. We have a significant port on 
the Delaware River, the Port of Wilmington. Through that port, frankly, 
more bananas come than any other port on the east coast--grapes, 
Chilean fruit, and steel. Delaware has been known through its history 
as the chemical capital of the world, home to major companies such as 
DuPont and Hercules and others. We have a number of plants that dot the 
landscape. Delaware is a financial center for our country, in downtown 
Wilmington, DE.
  A lot of people go through Delaware. If you do, you probably know I-
95 passes through Delaware, one of the busiest highways in the country. 
Interstate 495 does as well. The Northeast corridor for Amtrak passes 
through Delaware. Both freight railroads, CSX and Norfolk Southern, two 
of the busiest railroads in America, pass through Delaware.
  To our east, we have the Delaware River, a heavily trafficked river 
with some cargo, including some hazardous cargo that goes through our 
States, between our State and New Jersey on that river. On the other 
side of the Delaware is New Jersey and there is a nuclear powerplant in 
Summit, NJ. All of these factors tend to make our State a not 
unattractive target for terrorists.
  We need to make sure that whatever we do, we protect States such as 
Delaware that may not be the most populous but do have real safety and 
security concerns. I believe--I might be wrong, but I believe with this 
amendment we have found a way to do that without shortchanging our 
sister States around the country.
  The 9/11 Commission rightly pointed out that the current grant 
formula simply does not direct the Federal Government's scarce homeland 
security resources to the States and localities that need it the most. 
They called on Congress to create a new formula based on an assessment 
of threats and vulnerabilities that take into account real risk factors 
such as population density and the presence of critical infrastructure.
  Our amendment does just that. The formula we have crafted ensures 
that the majority of Federal first responders' aid each year goes to 
the States most vulnerable to attack. In my judgment and the judgment 
of my colleagues, our cosponsors, the formula is a fair one. It would 
ensure that big States such as New York and California and smaller, 
less populated States such as Delaware, or less populous States such as 
Wyoming or Minnesota, receive our fair share of Federal homeland 
security dollars.
  Large States will do much better under this formula in the amendment 
than they do under current law. This is especially true for States with 
large, densely populated cities or those that are located along an 
international border. It is my hope that this amendment will also 
better account for needs in States such as Delaware that have small 
populations but are located in risky parts of the country and have 
other significant vulnerabilities.
  In addition, our amendment gives the Secretary of Homeland Security 
the authority to distribute a portion of each year's grant funding 
directly to large cities such as New York or Washington, DC, where we 
are gathered today, to help them meet their unique security needs.
  We do all of this while preserving the small State minimum set out in 
current law. This will ensure that small States such as ours will 
continue to receive the resources they need, that we need, to protect 
our citizens from potential terrorist attack.
  In addition to these important formula changes which have been 
alluded to by both Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, our amendment 
makes this Homeland Security Grant Program much more user friendly.
  I don't know if our Presiding Officer or my colleague from Minnesota 
talked to their Governors recently or their mayors. Senator Coleman was 
once a

[[Page 19496]]

mayor so he could be talking to himself on this one, I suppose. But any 
of us talking to our Governors or mayors or first responders over the 
last couple of years know how inefficient this program can be and how 
frustrating it can be to deal with. Under the current system, anyone 
seeking a grant is faced with, believe it or not, a 12-step application 
process--12 steps. Once this process is complete, first responders then 
have to sit around and wait, sometimes for months, before they see that 
first dime.
  Our amendment dramatically streamlines this process; shortening the 
12-step application process to 2 steps, requiring that States pass 
grant funds down to the local level within 60 days of receipt. Our 
amendment also ensures that cities and local governments are involved 
in their State's planning and application process. Our amendment also 
includes an important provision giving States significant new 
flexibility to use first responder aid they receive to meet their most 
pressing security needs.
  Under the current system, States are given funding in four 
categories: No. 1, planning; No. 2, training; No. 3, they can use this 
money for exercises, and, No. 4, for equipment purchases. The States 
must spend a certain amount of money in each category, even if their 
homeland security plan calls for a different spending plan.
  We propose, on the other hand, to give States the ability to apply 
for a waiver that would allow them to use unspent training money, for 
example, to purchase needed equipment, if that is where their needs 
were to lie or, frankly, the converse could be true.
  Finally, our amendment creates a one-stop shop within the Department 
of Homeland Security. That one-stop shop would enable applicants to 
obtain grant information and other assistance. It also lays the 
groundwork for future reforms by authorizing a major review of all 
existing homeland security-related grant programs.
  As part of this review, an interagency committee will look at 
planning, will look at application and paperwork requirements in an 
effort to ensure that the different programs are coordinated and do not 
impose duplicative requirements on applicants. The committee would then 
make recommendations for changes aimed not at eliminating programs but 
at making sure all of those programs work together in a coordinated 
fashion with as small an administrative burden on applicants as 
possible.
  In conclusion, this amendment is based on bipartisan legislation 
reported out of the Governmental Affairs Committee unanimously this 
past June. It is a product of more than a year of debate on that 
committee about how we could better serve our first responders. The 
amendment enjoys the support of Democrat and Republican Senators from 
both large States and from small States, and when we have the 
opportunity to vote on this amendment, I will certainly urge our 
colleagues to vote for its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I want to congratulate my colleague, the 
Senator from Delaware, for the outstanding work he has done on this 
amendment and, in fact, as the Senator from Maine noted, his work 
involved in the series of hearings that we had to allow us to come 
before this body with a piece of legislation that will make America 
safer.
  If I may reflect first on the process of the underlying bill, we had 
a series of I believe eight hearings. Sometimes folks say we move too 
slow in these hallowed halls. There was a concern that in less than 2 
months we would come before this body with a bill that provides major 
restructuring of the way in which we handle the threat of terrorism in 
this country, that some might say we moved too hastily. But one 
wouldn't say that if they observed the process.
  Within those eight hearings, we had a wellspring of information. We 
heard from heads of the CIA in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s across party 
lines. I think of that hearing. We talked about the ``three wise men'' 
who came before us. We heard from agents who were active in the field 
in hearings that were not open to the public in which in fact the names 
of the agents themselves were still kept confidential. We heard from 
members of the Commission. We heard from representatives of the 
families of the victims.
  It was for me, relatively new in this body, who served as a mayor, as 
the Presiding Officer has served as a mayor, and involved in politics 
at what I call the bottom of the political food chain, a fascinating 
educational experience. I learned a lot. I think my colleagues, no 
matter how long they were in this body, learned a lot. We have all 
learned a lot in the post-September 11, 2001 world.
  As a result of what we heard, we come before this body with some 
needed reform--reform that has broad bipartisan support. I believe the 
process we used represents the best of what this body is all about, 
working in a bipartisan way dealing with some difficult issues, issues 
of life and death, truly life and death, coming to some conclusions, 
and in the end making America a safer place.
  I associate myself with the comments of my colleague from Delaware as 
he talked about the process because I shared that experience.
  I also want to talk about the underlying amendment, the Collins-
Lieberman-Carper amendment, again from the prospective of a former 
locally elected official who appreciates one-stop shopping. When I was 
dealing with licensing in the city of St. Paul, one of the things we 
did was set up one-stop shopping so folks didn't have to go to 16 
different places to fill out where the application was, what had to be 
in it, who you had to talk to, and it made a difference. I talked with 
our consumers. I know because I talked to them. When you are mayor and 
go down the street, people will grab you by the elbow and tell you 
about the experience. They appreciated it.
  With a matter as complex, as serious, and as profound as dealing with 
the issue of homeland security in a time when our Nation faces threats 
of terrorism, we managed in this amendment to do a number of things 
which I believe are very helpful. We simplified a process. We have 
taken something that was a 12-step process and made it a 2-step 
process.
  We have accelerated the process requiring States to provide 80 
percent for the homeland security resources they receive at the local 
level within 60 days without moving the money forward. There are needs 
out there. People deserve to know that the resources are there.
  We provided flexibility, targeting the most vulnerable areas, and 
also making sure that all parts of the country and all States have an 
opportunity to do what needs to be done to provide a greater measure of 
safety against the threat of terrorism.
  Minnesota is a big State. Wyoming is a big State geographically, but 
not a big State in population. Much of the area of Minnesota is rural. 
Yet within the State of Minnesota, which is a big State but not a 
highly-populated State, with about 5 million people, we have the Mall 
of America, probably one of the most frequented tourist places in the 
United States. Every year 35 million people visit the Mall of America.
  We have, of course, the Mississippi River in Minnesota which starts 
as a little stream right up there in Itasca and becomes the great 
Mississippi of legend, of Mark Twain, and eventually finds its way to 
Louisiana and into the gulf.
  Along the Mississippi, we have a nuclear powerplant on an Indian 
reservation, the Prairie Island Reservation right on the Mississippi 
River in Minnesota. We have Duluth, which is located on Lake Superior, 
which is the gateway to the Great Lakes and transatlantic shipping.
  We have miles and miles of border between Minnesota and Canada, a 
border that is not heavily populated, that is easily crossed, a border 
which in certain conditions is pretty tough to police. It is pretty 
tough up in International Falls where it is minus 28 or 30 degrees 
Fahrenheit without wind chill. Border agents up there have to

[[Page 19497]]

learn how to pull a trigger on a pistol when it is very cold. It is not 
that easy. They have to learn how to use snowmobiles and float planes, 
and all sorts of things that may not be seen in other parts of the 
country.
  But we face challenges. Obviously, we heard from Delaware, and the 
Presiding Officer would be on the floor now talking about Wyoming. He 
would talk about the challenges that are faced there.
  This is an amendment that provides the targeting of resources in the 
areas where clearly there is the greatest threat but provides the 
needed flexibility so that places such as International Falls in 
Minnesota or the Mall of America or a nuclear powerplant on the 
Mississippi River can also be protected.
  This is an amendment that is a product of the process I talked about. 
It has bipartisan support. It has the support of Senators from large 
States and small States. It is something I believe my colleagues will 
and should overwhelmingly support.
  I am honored to speak on behalf of this amendment and to urge its 
adoption. In doing so, I truly believe it will make this country a 
safer place and it will make it easier and make it quicker. It will 
make it much more practical for folks throughout this country to access 
the funds they need to provide a greater measure of protection against 
the threat of terrorism.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CARPER. 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. COLEMAN. 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. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would like to address two provisions in 
the underlying bill that were the subject of much debate, much 
discussion during our hearings on the 9/11 Commission recommendations. 
One of them had to do with the recommendation as to whether the 
national intelligence director should serve at the pleasure of the 
President or should serve a fixed term.
  The 9/11 Commission recommended that the national intelligence 
director serve at the pleasure of the President. Some observers, 
however, have suggested that making the NID serve a fixed term would 
help preserve the independence of the national intelligence director. 
The Collins-Lieberman bill creates a NID who will be appointed by the 
President, confirmed by the Senate, and who will serve at the pleasure 
of the President. This is one of those discussions where the words of 
the Senator from Delaware ring true: the importance of making sure we 
keep the main thing the main thing.
  We had come before us, as I indicated earlier, three former Directors 
of the Central Intelligence Agency: William Webster, James Woolsey, and 
Stansfield Turner. Each of them testified that among all the powers of 
the NID and the variables we needed to consider when deciding whether 
to create a national intelligence director, the most important quality, 
the most important variable for the national intelligence director to 
be effective is to have the support of the President of the United 
States.
  The national intelligence director will be responsible for overseeing 
a broad range of intelligence functions and operations in this country. 
His ability to provide that kind of leadership and direction in many 
ways will be contingent upon having the support of the Commander in 
Chief, having the support of the President of the United States.
  Robert Mueller, who served a 10-year term as FBI Director, testified 
that the NID should serve at the pleasure of the President. Director 
Mueller distinguished the FBI, which is expected to be an independent 
investigative agency, from the office of the NID, which will be 
responsible for advising the President on intelligence matters, and 
that advice will be shaping the President's policy decisions. Among the 
responsibilities of the NID is to be the principal adviser to the 
President himself.
  Some believe that having the NID serve a fixed term could help 
insulate the national intelligence director from political pressure. 
However, what it would do is to insulate the national intelligence 
director from the President. We cannot afford, in these difficult and 
challenging times, at a time when America is under the threat of 
terrorist attack, to have the national intelligence director 
marginalized by a President who does not trust the national 
intelligence director.
  The national intelligence director will be one of the most powerful 
individuals in the U.S. Government, and he will be one of the 
President's closest advisers. As such, the President has to be able to 
select his own national intelligence director. And all those in the 
intelligence operations, all those in other branches of Government who 
are involved in intelligence gathering, intelligence processing, and 
intelligence formulation of operation need to understand that the 
national intelligence director has the absolute confidence of the 
President of the United States.
  There are a number of alternative mechanisms to protect the 
objectivity and the independence of the national intelligence director. 
But, again, I think it is critically important that the national 
intelligence director have the support of the President. And those 
thoughts are not just the thoughts of this Senator, but they were the 
expressed opinions of three former Directors of the Central 
Intelligence Agency who came before our committee and the opinion of 
the current head of the FBI who himself has a 10-year term.
  One of the other issues that was the subject of a great deal of 
discussion and focus was what type of authority the national 
intelligence director should have to develop and execute the budget for 
national intelligence. It was said many times, whoever controls the 
money has the power.
  We have made a judgment in this bill to have a strong national 
intelligence director, a national intelligence director who has the 
confidence of the President of the United States, but also a national 
intelligence director who will have control over the development of the 
budget for the national intelligence program, including the authority 
to coordinate, prepare, direct, and present to the President the annual 
budget for the national intelligence program.
  This bill gives the NID the authority to manage and oversee the 
execution of the national intelligence program, including visibility 
and control over how money is spent. It ensures that the core national 
intelligence agencies--the CIA, NSA, NGA, NRO, FBI Office of 
Intelligence, and the Department of Homeland Security Directorate of 
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection--are entirely within 
the budgetary authority of the national intelligence director. And it 
gives the national intelligence director influence over the budgets of 
intelligence-related activities and organizations that are outside the 
national intelligence director.
  Our approach is consistent with the recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission, which said the NID must be given--and I quote--``control 
over the purse strings,'' including the power to submit a unified 
budget for national intelligence, to receive the appropriation for 
national intelligence, and to apportion the funds to the appropriate 
agencies in line with the budget.
  The Commission viewed these budget authorities as absolutely 
essential to achieve the objectives of intelligence reform. One of the 
chairs of the Commission, Mr. Hamilton, said:

       We would not create the national intelligence director if 
     he or she did not have strong budget authority.

  Former Directors of the Central Intelligence Agency who testified 
before our committee also supported giving the national intelligence 
director strong budget authority.
  William Webster, who was both head of the CIA and the FBI, said:

       Control of the budget is essential to effective management 
     of the intelligence community.


[[Page 19498]]


  James Woolsey, former Director of the CIA, said:

       If budget execution authority is given to the [national 
     intelligence director], he will or she will have a much 
     better ability to say to the Secretary of State or the 
     Secretary of Defense, ``Look, I sympathize. I understand. I 
     know this fluent Arabic linguist is a very rare asset, but 
     you did not hear me. I really need her or him.''

  Again, who controls the money has the power.
  As Chairman Hamilton said: The Commission would not have created a 
national intelligence director if he or she did not have strong budget 
authority.
  Senior officials in the Office of the Director of Central 
Intelligence also believe that stronger budget authority is needed in 
order for the national intelligence director to truly be in charge of 
the intelligence community.
  John McLaughlin said the person responsible for the intelligence 
community should ``have full authority to determine, reprogram and 
execute all funding for the core national intelligence agencies, 
principally CIA, NSA, the NGA and NRO.''
  On and on, the advice the committee received was very clear: If you 
want to have a strong national intelligence director, you must give him 
or her strong budget authority.
  Consumers of intelligence also testified that it would be desirable 
for the national intelligence director to have strong budget authority. 
Secretary of State Colin Powell, at the hearing of our committee on 
September 13, 2004, said:

       The [Director of Central Intelligence] was there before, 
     but the DCI did not have the kind of authority [needed]. And 
     in this town, it's budget authority that counts. Can you move 
     money? Can you set standards for people. So you have access 
     to the President? The [national intelligence director] will 
     have all of that, and so I think this is a far more powerful 
     player. And that will help the State Department.

  Some of those who have brought a different perspective have said that 
the Director of Central Intelligence already has the needed authority 
but simply has failed to use it, and that if budget execution authority 
is needed, it should be given to the national intelligence director by 
Executive order.
  With respect to the NFIP budget, the testimony before our committee--
much of it in closed session--demonstrated that the Director of Central 
Intelligence authorities in practice are considerably weaker than they 
might appear on paper. So what we heard was how things work in the real 
world. What we heard was the day-to-day reality of how authority can be 
used, how it can be challenged. If it is not crystal clear, if it is 
not absolutely clear, if it is not unequivocal, as laid out in this 
bill, then, in fact, it may not in practice be as strong as one would 
desire.
  The testimony also demonstrated considerable confusion about the 
actual extent of the Director of Central Intelligence legal authority 
which I found to be quite interesting. We would have before us various 
members of the intelligence community, and there would actually be a 
cross-discussion going on as to whether there was, in fact, this 
authority that one person believed was there but that the other person 
didn't believe was there. What we do in this bill is to get rid of the 
confusion and make it clear. We clarify any ambiguity in the existing 
language and make unmistakably clear Congress's intent that the 
national intelligence director, not the Department heads, will have the 
final say in developing the national intelligence budget.
  With respect to receiving the appropriation and budget execution, the 
Director of Central Intelligence clearly does not have these key 
authorities today. Neither the administration nor we believe these 
authorities could be given to the Director of Central Intelligence, 
much less the national intelligence director, which has not yet been 
created by Congress, without congressional action.
  There is simply no excuse for Congress not to act. This bill provides 
the kind of action that was clearly laid out before our committee as 
needed, as supported by those both in the intelligence network and the 
system, those who are making the decisions and those who are working 
with the decisions that are being made.
  I do hope this body supports the recommendation of the Commission, 
the recommendation that is part of the bill before us.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15, the Senate 
proceed to a vote in relation to the McCain amendment No. 3702, with no 
second degrees in order to the amendment prior to the vote; provided 
further that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to the 
vote. Finally, I ask consent that following the vote, Senator Stevens 
be recognized in order to make a statement.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, would the Chair indicate, there are still 
two additional amendments that are pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the Senator's request, there is just one 
amendment.
  Mr. REID. I understand the unanimous consent request talks about one 
amendment, but if we dispose of that amendment, there would still be 
two amendments pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REID. I would hope that following Senator Stevens's statement, we 
could make arrangements to vote on those two as early as possible this 
afternoon and move on to other matters on this bill. All of these 
matters have been debated thoroughly. I would hope that after that, the 
majority leader can arrange a time to vote on these amendments. We are 
ready over here. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COLEMAN. We will talk to the Members over the lunch hour and see 
if we can work this out.
  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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Homeland Security

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am here today on the eve of the debate 
that will be occurring on Thursday evening. I know most Americans will 
be watching. I think they are probably the most important debates, 
certainly, since the Kennedy-Nixon debate, which was the first one.
  The issue, of course, is related to the security of the country. I am 
going to focus my few remarks on security here at home, in terms of 
homeland security.
  Whatever you think of the war on terror abroad--and there are many 
different views and we will hear some of those on Thursday night--my 
view--and I tend to be hawkish--is that hawks should be as angry or 
more angry with the President than doves, because the bottom line is 
that Iraq wasn't thought through. We don't have a plan and there is 
nowhere really to go. The idea of keeping faith and saying, well, there 
will be elections in January and that will make everything better, that 
is similar to the idea that we will win the war in 3 weeks and that 
will make everything better. It is simply not thought through and there 
are all these chimerical sort of wishes and hopes.
  First, the election will not be held in many parts of the country. 
Second, I don't think it is going to make the basic problems go away. A 
devastating commentary on the war in Iraq is that we have been unable 
to spend money on infrastructure. One of the whole theories is that we 
were going to rebuild the country and show the Iraqis a better life. 
Because the terrorists who are there--who are despicable--have been 
able to do so much in terms of sabotage and criminal activities, in 
terms of taking those workers who would rebuild Iraq and treating them 
so brutally, it has made it basically impossible to rebuild. The 
President and his administration admitted as much when they took back 
the money for rebuilding and are now putting it into security.
  Again, what everyone thinks about the war overseas--and there are 
many different views, and I believe John Kerry will enunciate a view 
that is far

[[Page 19499]]

more consonant with the American people than what President Bush has 
done so far. I say that as somebody who supported the $87 billion and 
the vote to go to war, because I believe we need a strong, aggressive 
foreign policy.
  I believe the war on terror is the vital discussion of this decade 
and of our generation, probably. To win the war on terror, you need a 
good offense and a good defense. On defense, I regret to say, 
basically, this administration has not come close to doing what is 
necessary.
  When you ask why, the bottom line is very simple: They don't want to 
spend the money. Their idea after idea after idea about air security, 
port security, rail security, truck security--we have the technology, 
not to make certain a terrorist attack doesn't occur but certainly to 
decrease the odds of it. When you go to the people in the agencies and 
ask why are you not doing this or that, they say: We don't have the 
money. When we come to the floor and argue about homeland security--as 
we just did when the Appropriations bill on homeland security came 
forward--we were told by my friend from Mississippi, the chairman, that 
we are spending enough. Let me tell you, we are not spending close to 
enough in any one of these areas.
  Let's say, God willing, we manage to wipe out al-Qaida in the next 
year or two, and let's say the problems in Iraq subside--in my view, 
because Kerry will be elected and will handle them a lot better than 
President Bush has--we are still going to have new terrorist threats.
  Terrorism can be described in a single sentence, which is that the 
very technology that has blessed our lives and accounted for so much of 
the prosperity we have seen over the last two decades has an evil 
underside; namely, that small groups of bad people can get ahold of 
that technology and use it for terrible purposes. So if al-Qaida is 
gone--and let's hope they will be--and if terrorism in Iraq greatly 
declines--and let's hope that occurs--there are going to be new groups 
that start using this terrorism and using it against us and trying to 
use it in our homeland. It could be Chechnians; maybe they will have a 
meeting and decide that instead of blowing up movie theaters and 
airplanes in Moscow, the real answer is to go after the United States. 
Maybe it will be East Timorese, who have been fighting for independence 
in east Asia. For all we know, it could be skinheads in Montana who 
decide to do this--a couple of them did it in Oklahoma City--but in a 
more structured and destructive way, God forbid. So we cannot even keep 
track of the various groups that could hurt us.
  The sad fact is, if 500 random people around the world, with some 
leadership, were injected with an evil virus and they were to decide, 
fanatically, they would devote the next 5 years of their lives to 
figuring out how to hurt America and try to implement it, the odds are 
too high that they could succeed.
  So do we need a good offense? Yes, we do. Do we need a good defense? 
You bet. On area after area after area, we are not doing enough. Let me 
catalog a few.
  Air security, here we are doing something of a better job than we 
have done in the past. The screeners, for all the problems they have, 
are a lot better than they were before 9/11 when they were paid minimum 
wage by private security companies. Some didn't speak English 
adequately. We are inspecting cargo.
  But probably the No. 1 way terrorists could now hurt us as we travel 
in the air is by using shoulder-held missiles. We know the terrorists 
have them, al-Qaida has them, and they are available on the black 
market. We are slow walking any attempt to put on our commercial 
airplanes the mechanism to deflect the rockets, the heat-seeking 
rockets that emerge from shoulder-held missiles.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Is the Senator aware that on at least five different 
occasions we have had votes on the Senate floor where we have asked for 
increased funding for homeland security and the Bush people have turned 
it down through various ways? I amplify that by saying these are all 
set forth in Senator Byrd's best-selling book. Is the Senator aware we 
tried to get money for real homeland security--not security in Iraq but 
security for the American people--and this has been turned down; is he 
aware of that?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I am aware of it, and it frustrates me to no end. 
Senator Byrd has had amendments, Senator Murray has had amendments, 
Senator Corzine has had amendments, Senator Clinton and I have had 
amendments, one after the other, and they are turned down.
  I say to my colleague from Nevada, I have asked people in the 
administration, both present and former--a few who quit in disgust--are 
President Bush and his people not aware of the dangers? They basically 
say, no, they are aware of the dangers, but they don't want to spend 
any money here at home. They would rather have all the money go to tax 
cuts, and so it is not that they do nothing in each of these areas; 
they do the bare minimum: Let's have a study and let it take 2 years. 
Let's decide on what to do down the road.
  For every year we wait, we become more vulnerable.
  Mr. REID. Being more specific, is the Senator aware we have tried to 
address rail security and Amtrak security? Turned down. On several 
occasions, port security, turned down. Is he aware we have tried to get 
specific money to first responders? Turned down. The Senator is aware 
of this and other measures--for example, hazardous chemicals security, 
which Senator Corzine has pushed so much. The Senator is aware of each 
of these, and we have had votes and have been turned down on the floor 
by the majority on all requests.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am aware, to answer my good friend from 
Nevada, of this. I am frustrated by it, and, frankly, I am befuddled by 
it because an administration that is so aggressive when it comes to 
taking the war overseas and will ask us for billions and billions more 
at the drop of a hat----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Presiding Officer.

                          ____________________