Vote Smart - Facts For All

OFFICIALS LEGISLATION INTEREST GROUPS PUBLIC STATEMENTS COMMITTEES VETOES

National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004

By: Susan Collins

Date: Oct. 1, 2004

Location: Washington, DC

Issues: Defense Education

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE REFORM ACT OF 2004

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Colorado for the work that he has done in coordinating the geospatial information needs of the Department of Homeland Security. He first introduced a bill on this issue last year. He has been a leader in pushing for improvements in how this information is handled. This legislation was recently reported as a separate bill by the Governmental Affairs Committee. It is acceptable and cleared on both sides. I urge adoption of the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado for his generous comments. I very much enjoy working with him on the Armed Services Committee. He brings a great deal of expertise to this debate.

The amendment he has proposed this morning is one that our staffs are starting to look at. I suggest that it be set aside so that we can do more analysis of it, but I appreciate the spirit in which it was offered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, before I comment on the specifics of the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia, let me join Senator Lieberman in expressing the utmost respect that I have for the Senator from West Virginia. His devotion to the Constitution, to the Senate, to the country, and to his family is truly legendary. I have learned so much just from watching the Senator from West Virginia. In fact, he inspired me to get a copy of the Constitution, and while I don't carry it with me as he does, I have it in my briefcase. It was his example that inspired me to do that.

Like Senator Lieberman, I have, nevertheless, many concerns about the pending amendment. In drafting our bill, we made very clear the authority that the new national intelligence director would have. We did not want to simply create another layer of bureaucracy. What we wanted to do is to empower the NID with significant budget personnel, standard-setting authority, so that this individual could make a difference.

I remember in the testimony before our committee the consensus among the witnesses was that in order for the NID to be effective, strong authority was absolutely critical. Indeed, the assistant DCI for community management said it very forthrightly. He testified as follows:

We must be flexible in shifting people and money to respond to emerging priorities. Today's intelligence budget system does not meet this criteria.

Senator Byrd's amendment imposes significant restrictions on the ability of NID to transfer personnel and to transfer funds. That concerns me greatly.

Under the Collins-Lieberman bill, with OMB approval, the NID may transfer or reprogram funds appropriated for a program within the national intelligence budget to another program. The NID is required to consult with the heads of the affected agencies prior to implementing such a reprogramming or transfer, but our bill does not require their approval. We make very clear that the reprogramming and transferring approvals and restrictions as far as congressional authority are included in our bill, as well.

If we require the concurrence of the agency heads before personnel or money can be moved around, we essentially have made no improvement in the current system. That is not progress. In fact, it is exactly the problem the 9/11 Commission identified over and over again as a major flaw in the current system.

The NID needs to be able to marshal the people, the funds, and the resources necessary to counter the threats we face. That is the bottom line.

The current authorities for the DCI are insufficient because they permit agencies to prevent the DCI from transferring funds or people simply by objective. That is what we need to change.

I am also concerned about making additional positions created by this bill subject to Senate confirmation. The privacy and civil rights officers at the Department of Homeland Security are not Senate-confirmed positions. I see no reason for treating the privacy and civil rights officers that would be created by this bill any differently.

There is another point that I make about the restrictions in the Senator's amendments on reprogramming and transfer authority.
That is, if we are going to impose these kinds of restrictions, we are not improving the system in any significant way, and we are allowing the long delays that plague the current system to continue.

Acting CIA Director John McLaughlin told me it can take as long as 5 months for him to reprogram funds. In the threat environment we face today, we cannot afford a 5-month delay in transferring urgently needed funds to counter the threat we face.

The amendment of the Senator from West Virginia would represent a significant weakening of the authority in this bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, as we have indicated, the legislation before the Senate is the product of a concerted effort by the Governmental Affairs Committee to reflect the testimony of more than two dozen witnesses at eight hearings. It reflects the recommendations of other committees who gave us input into the legislation, and it builds upon the work of the 9/11 Commission. But it is important to know that the 9/11 Commission did not start from scratch, either. Its work takes into account nearly a half century of studies on intelligence reform, dating back to the Eisenhower administration. Indeed, the calls for reform go back 50 years. For nearly 2 years, the 9/11 Commission conducted an investigation of unprecedented depth. They interviewed more than 1,200 witnesses in 10 countries, yet we hear again those who counsel: Not yet; we are going too fast; we should wait; we need more information; under the current threat of terrorism, the time isn't right; the highly charged political atmosphere of a Presidential campaign creates an environment that is not right for such an important decision.

I ask, what more information do we need? If you look at the list of witnesses who testified before the 9/11 Commission, before the Governmental Affairs Committee, before the Armed Services and Intelligence Appropriations Committee, I would say, what point of view has not been heard? What area of expertise was not explored? What more compelling evidence do we need? I ask, if the time isn't right to act now, when will the right time ever come? When will there be no threats? When will we be at peace?

The war against terrorism is likely to have to continue for many years. I believe we will have failed the American people if we do not act on an issue that is so important to the security of our country.

I think the chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean, said it best when he spoke at our very first committee hearing on July 30 of the urgent need to move forward with these reforms. This is what he said:

These people are planning to attack us again, and trying to attack us sooner rather than later. Every delay that we have in changing structures to make that less likely is a delay that the American people can't tolerate.

I think he said it well. The stakes are too high. The matter before us is too compelling. Even as we debate this legislation, we know that terrorists are planning to attack our country. We know that we are at an increased risk of terrorist attack. We see it all around this Capitol at the intersections and with the increased security. How can we not act? What more do we need to know?

If we do not act, I think we will have failed to respond to an urgent threat, and we will have failed in our responsibility to do everything we can to make our citizens safer.

Now is not the time to delay. Now is the time to move forward, and to move forward with a bill that makes a difference, not a bill that tinkers around the edges or makes a few cosmetic changes but, rather, with a bill that makes fundamental reforms to respond to deficiencies, inadequacies, and flaws that have been identified time and time again over 50 years.

I thank the Chair.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, for the national intelligence director to be truly accountable for the intelligence community, the director must have the authority to have a real say in the selection of the heads of the principal agencies of the intelligence community. The 9/11 Commission said that the ability to hire the senior managers is one of the key authorities, critical to the success of the national intelligence director. It is critical to the success of any leader, but particularly it is important for the head of the intelligence community. The 9/11 Commission cited the DCI's current lack of this power as one of the key flaws in the
DCI's authorities.

Under the Collins-Lieberman bill, the NID will recommend to the President nominees to be the directors of the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency-the agencies known better as NSA, NGA, and NRO. The NID is required to obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense before recommending the nominees to the President, and if the Secretary of Defense does not agree with the recommendations of the NID, the director must make that fact known to the President.

The distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the managers of this bill each agree that these three critical agencies should remain within the Department of Defense because of the dual role these agencies play. For that reason, we joined forces to oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania that would have severed the link between these agencies and the Secretary of Defense, the reporting link.

In our bill, I believe we have taken the right approach. We have left these three agencies within the Department of Defense, but we have made it clear that there is an important reporting responsibility to the national intelligence director and that the national intelligence director will choose the individuals to lead these agencies with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense. It is actually the President's nomination, but the recommendations would go from the NID with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense.

Why did we do that? We struck that balance not only because it was recommended by the 9/11 Commission, and strongly recommended, but because we recognize that these three agencies do not just serve the Department of Defense; they are national intelligence assets. They provide vital intelligence information throughout the intelligence community. In fact, when Senator Lieberman and I met with the head of the NSA, he told us he was on the phone far more often with the Director of the
CIA than he is with the Secretary of Defense.

These agencies provide critical information to the CIA, to the Secretary of State, to the Secretary of Energy, to the Secretary of the Treasury-to all those 15 agencies across our Government that vitally need intelligence information. That is why we have the heads of these agencies recommended by the national intelligence director with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense.

I point out that if we were to adopt the amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia, we are essentially making no change in current law. Under current law, the Secretary of Defense recommends the appointment of these individuals to the President, and it is the Director of Central Intelligence who concurs in the choice. So essentially the Senator from Virginia is simply restating current law. Current law is not adequate, and we know that that higher authority is a key authority. If we are going to hold the national intelligence director accountable for the intelligence community, we have to give him the authorities he needs to do his job.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, to respond to the question raised by the Senator from Virginia, it is the leader's intention to convene perhaps at 10 or 11 o'clock on Monday morning, allow for some further debate, and then stack votes beginning at 3 p.m. There will be 2 minutes equally divided before each vote, but knowing of the Senator's desire to have further debate on Monday, we are going to convene early enough on Monday to allow that to occur. We expect a great many stacked votes to begin at approximately 3 o'clock Monday. Thus, we are not going to have time for extensive debate between those votes.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague. I shall certainly be here. As a matter of fact, I will preside for a period of time. Maybe when I get in the chair and have the gavel, I can do something about this amendment.

In any event, I am appreciative of the courtesies that have been extended to Members of the Senate deliberating on this bill. This is an important matter.

Hopefully, in the interim, I can persuade not only the Senate but the White House to indicate its position on this amendment.
I thank the Chair. I thank my distinguished colleagues. I will be available for further amendments as the managers decide to have them scheduled during the course of the day.

This amendment will now be laid aside?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

Ms. COLLINS. I ask that the amendment be laid aside. The Senator from Vermont is next. I wonder if the Senator could withhold for a couple of moments to allow consultation among the three of us before he sends up his amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Vermont bringing his amendment forward. We are going to discuss it further with him.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be laid aside temporarily and that the Senator from Rhode Island be recognized to offer an amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it is my understanding, based on the tentative schedule that we worked out last night, that Senator Levin is to be recognized next to offer amendments, followed by Senator Roberts, followed by Senator Stevens, followed by Senator Kyl. I see the Senator from North Dakota is here to make a comment. My concern is how that fits in with the amendment schedule worked out last night.

Mr. CONRAD. I would be happy to yield to Senators for their amendments.

Ms. COLLINS. I appreciate that.

Mr. President, the pending amendment raises several questions. It has very worthy goals. We have previously adopted a
McCain-Lieberman amendment dealing with some of the same issues. We need to have a discussion with the sponsors of the amendment, Senators REED and SARBANES and others, to see how their amendment interacts with the legislation previously adopted, the McCain-Lieberman amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I support the amendment proposed by Senator Levin. I thank him for offering it and for all of his
hard work. It reflects not only the Senator's unique experience as a member of the Intelligence Committee, the Armed Services Committee, and the Governmental Affairs Committee, but also it reflects his usual care and attention to detail, which is unparalleled in this body.

The Levin amendment makes clear that the NID will establish collection and analysis requirements for the intelligence community following input from the consumers of intelligence. With these authorities, the NID will be able to manage collection activities across the intelligence community to ensure that defense, homeland security, and diplomatic needs are prioritized and satisfied. Similarly, a strong NID will ensure robust and competitive analysis of intelligence, prioritized to meet our most pressing needs.

Senator Levin's amendment will clarify that the consumers of national intelligence should set the requirements for collection and analysis. It would also emphasize that independent and comparative analyses are critical to an effective intelligence community.

I thank the Senator from Michigan for his contribution. I urge agreement of the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Levin amendment.

The amendment (No. 3808) was agreed to.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Ms. COLLINS. I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, for his thoughtful amendments.

I have a great deal of admiration and respect for the Senator's knowledge in this area. I was very pleased that he participated in some of the committee's hearings, particularly the one where we had the former DCIs come in and give us their views. Both and he Senator Rockefeller took the time out of their August recess to come to that hearing and fully participated in it. They have been providing us with their insight and guidance, which I very much appreciate.

The Senator from Kansas has offered a series of thoughtful amendments that are designed to clarify provisions in the bill with regard to information sharing, the primary mission of the National Intelligence Authority, the authorities of the NID, and several other matters. We agree largely with the goals of these amendments, and we are trying to work out agreement on specific language.

One of the problems we face, since we have adopted a lot of different amendments, including one cosponsored by the Senator last night having to do with an office of alternative analysis, is we need to make sure we are not duplicating changes that have been made by other amendments. It is a bit of a moving target here.

Another problem is, of course, we are trying to maintain that delicate balance struck by our bill. Any amendment that further strengthens the NID's authorities is a particular concern to one group; any amendment that weakens the NID's authorities is a particular concern to another. I know the Senator is very aware of the competing pressures in this regard.

In short, I want to assure the Senator and thank him for his contributions. We will try to work out these amendments consistent with the approach we have taken in the underlying bill. I very much appreciate the Senator's cooperation and good work and his leadership in this area.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, will the distinguished chairman yield?

Ms. COLLINS. I would be happy to yield.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the cooperation of the Senator from Arizona. We would be happy to work with him on the three amendments that he has laid down.

I do want to debate further the other amendment, his first amendment on privacy and civil liberties oversight. That is a key amendment, and I do want to engage on that. However, I know that Senator Stevens is under a tight timeframe for this afternoon. I would be willing to delay my response to the debate of the two Senators on my side of the aisle until after Senator Stevens has had an opportunity to lay down his amendments.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Alaska is on a tight timeline this afternoon. I am not going to respond in depth to the amendments he put forward.

Let me say to the Senator from Alaska that on some of his amendments he has raised very valid concerns, and I would like the opportunity to work with him to try to resolve some of the issues. For example, some of the implementation date issues I believe we might be able to work through. The clarifying language on the counterterrorism center parallels the changes we made in committee, and we may well be able to come up with something on that.

I appreciate the Senator's concerns and his desire to make sure that the language is clear and accurate throughout the bill.
While obviously we have some fundamental disagreements on the underlying legislation, nevertheless I believe that some things in his amendments are beneficial in the bill, if we are able to resolve some language. I want to pledge to him my appreciation for his effort and my willingness to work with him on some of those issues.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT NO. 3849

Ms. COLLINS. I call for the regular order with respect to the Corzine amendment numbered 3849.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.

AMENDMENT NO. 3946 TO AMENDMENT NO. 3849

(Purpose: To provide a complete substitute)

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Inhofe.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maine, [Ms. COLLINS], for Mr. Inhofe, proposes an amendment numbered 3946 to amendment No. 3849.

(The amendment is printed in today's RECORD under "Text of Amendments.")

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside so that other amendments
can be considered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Ms. COLLINS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senators from Arizona and Alabama bringing forward their amendments today,
but I have a number of concerns about them.

The proposed amendments strike an officer for civil rights and civil liberties and a privacy officer for the new national
intelligence authority. The amendment also strikes provisions requiring that a senior official be designated in certain departments and agencies who would be responsible for privacy and civil liberties issues. And finally, the amendment changes the authority of the privacy and civil liberties oversight board by removing its subpoena authority. I particularly want to address that last point, because I think there is a misunderstanding on the extent of the subpoena authority and to whom it applies.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, during his joint address to the Congress, the President called on all Americans to:

. . . uphold the values of America and remember why so many have come here. We're in a fight for our principles and our first responsibility is to live by them.

Similarly, the 9/11 Commission concluded in its report that we must find ways of reconciling security with liberty since the success of one helps protect the other. The choice between security and liberty is a false choice, as nothing is more likely to endanger America's liberties than the success of a terrorist attack at home.

The Commission went on to state that while protecting our homeland, Americans should be mindful of the threats to vital personal and civil liberties. The shift of power and authority to the Government calls for an enhanced system of checks and balances to protect the precious liberties that are vital to our way of life.

In response to these concerns, the Commission recommended that at this time of increased and consolidated Government authority, there should be a board within the executive branch to oversee adherence to the guidelines the Commission recommends and the commitment of our Government to protect civil liberties.

To respond to these recommendations and the concerns that we fight this war against terrorism without sacrificing the values that define us as Americans, S. 2845 establishes the two officers, one for civil rights and one for privacy, to assist the national intelligence director on issues that may affect civil liberties and privacy. These officials are modeled after those created by Congress for the Department of Homeland Security. There is both a civil liberties officer and a privacy officer. The creation of similar officers within the Department of Homeland Security is a good example of how these officers can assist the Department in considering relevant issues without compromising our efforts to protect the homeland.

The Department has found that having those two officials has helped them strike the right balance as they pursue new policies. The Department has found that the work of these officials at DHS has not hindered its implementation of programs and activities but, rather, has improved them. By providing advice and counsel as policies and programs are being developed, they help the Department address privacy and civil liberties concerns at the front end and minimize the possibility of having to respond to real problems after a policy or program that didn't take into account privacy implications or civil liberties implications has already been put into place.

I would have been more sympathetic to the amendment if the Senators had made the argument that perhaps in this much smaller unit those two officials could be combined into one position so that we could have one official for both privacy and civil liberties. That might be a possible compromise. It is one about which I would have to talk with the other sponsor of the bill. But that might be a way to respond to a concern that I know the Presiding Officer has about excessive positions or bureaucracies.

I want to speak particularly to the subpoena issue. The subpoena power provided in this bill to the civil liberties board applies only to persons other than departments, agencies, and elements of the executive branch. I want to repeat that. While the bill does authorize the board to have access to executive department and agency materials and personnel, where appropriate, there is no subpoena power. There is no enforcement mechanism in the bill. That leaves compliance in the hands of the relevant department or agency head. The subpoena power only applies to outside entities, not to Government agencies or officials.

So the provisions of this subpoena authority do not allow the scenario brought forth by some of the sponsors of this amendment in which they raise the specter of the civil liberties board being able to subpoena a CIA case officer. That is not allowed under this bill.

Moreover, the subpoena authority in this bill is narrower, much more circumscribed, than the authority that is given to inspectors general throughout the Federal Government who do have the ability to subpoena documents and individuals for information within the Federal Government. I wanted to correct that misunderstanding on the subpoena power.

We have a responsibility, as we continue to improve our capacity to fight terrorism-the all-important battle that our Nation faces-to uphold and protect the very liberties and freedom on which this Nation was founded and for which we are fighting today.
We need to make sure that as we strengthen the power of Government, we do not infringe upon the civil liberties and the privacy of law-abiding Americans. I believe the provisions in this bill help to strike the right balance.

Let me complete my remarks on this issue by pointing out that the 9/11 Commission has endorsed the board created by this bill. I know the Senator from Alabama has suggested a different version of a civil liberties board.

In testimony before the House Government Reform Committee, two of our commissioners-and I would note it was bipartisan; it was a Republican commissioner and a Democratic commissioner-said:

A civil liberties board of the kind we recommend can be found in the Collins-Lieberman bill in the Senate.

I thank the Chair.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I believe we will be here for another hour, approximately-until 5 o'clock.

Mr. WARNER. That should be adequate time.

Ms. COLLINS. Before the Senator from Virginia leaves, I think we have the same goal in this amendment. But I think to make
sure that this amendment is interpreted as I believe we would all have it interpreted, we need to add language at the beginning that says something like: Except as specifically set forth in this act, nothing herein or amendments made by this amendment shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the authority of it.

That way it would be clear that in this provision we are not affecting the other authorities of these departments, but neither are
we wiping out what this legislation has done.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I fully understand the import of the language you are quoting. But that is almost putting a blessing on everything that is written into the bill. I am not sure I am prepared as yet to say that. That is going to require a little study on the part of both of us because I think the effect of your language is, don't touch the bill, but what the bill leaves they are accountable for. That has to be thought through.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, obviously we do want to preserve what is in the bill. That is why we are doing the bill.

Mr. WARNER. I understand that.

Ms. COLLINS. If the intent of the Senator is to override the provisions of the bill, then that would be a problem.

Mr. WARNER. We are trying to make certain just that undefined but all important concept of accountability remains. As you possibly take portions of the responsibility of department heads away and give it to the NID, I want to make sure, if something goes wrong, who is accountable.

We will work. I understand your perspective, but I am not prepared, as yet, to accept that amendment. So we will lay this aside. I thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut and my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, for working with me to address concerns that have been raised by the National Governors Association regarding the provisions in the McCain-Lieberman amendment that dealt with the standardization of State drivers' licenses. I believe the change which has been made, which will require an assessment of the cost benefits of any new requirements, is an important one.

I ask unanimous consent that two letters from the National Governors Association be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

NATIONAL GOVERNORS
ASSOCIATION,
Washington, DC, October 1, 2004.

Hon. SUSAN COLLINS,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR COLLINS: On behalf of the nation's Governors I am writing to thank you for your efforts in negotiating a compromise on amendment language regarding minimum standards for state driver's licenses. I know that you share Governors' concerns regarding the security and integrity of state driver's license and identification processes and appreciate the difficulties that federal mandates, particularly unfunded mandates, placed on states.

Due in large part to your concern regarding the mandates in the McCain/Lieberman driver's license amendment, NGA was able to make suggestions to improve the measure. We understand that a provision has been added to require that the negotiated rulemaking committee perform an assessment of the benefits and costs of its recommendations. This change is essential to help ensure that the federal government provides adequate funding to states to implement the required mandates.
Governors are committed to working cooperatively with the federal government to develop and implement realistic, achievable standards that will enhance efforts to prevent document fraud and other illegal activity related to the issuance of driver's licenses and identification documents. We appreciate your willingness to work with states to address our concerns. With all the changes included in the amendment, it will provide a reasonable compromise for addressing this issue.

Thank you again for your consideration and assistance. We look forward to working with you during conference.

Sincerely,

RAYMOND C. SCHEPPACH,
Executive Director.

NATIONAL GOVERNORS
ASSOCIATION,
Washington, DC, October 1, 2004.

Hon. JOHN MCCAIN,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.

Hon. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR MCCAIN AND SENATOR LIEBERMAN: Governors share your concerns regarding the security and integrity of state driver's license and identification processes. While NGA opposes federal mandates on states, particularly unfunded mandates, we appreciate your willingness to work with states to improve your amendment regarding minimum requirements for state driver's licenses. As you know, NGA strongly opposes the more proscriptive driver's license mandate provisions under consideration in the House.

It is my understanding that your original amendment has been modified to include two important changes: (1) clarification that the standards that will be set in the rulemaking process will initially apply only to newly-issued and reissued driver's licenses; and (2) a requirement that state elected officials, including Governors, serve on the negotiated rulemaking committee. In addition, we request that a provision be added to require that the negotiated rulemaking committee perform an assessment of the annual benefits and costs of its recommendations.

The first two changes are vital to ensuring that the minimum requirements established under the amendment are workable, do not unnecessarily interfere with existing state laws and improvements, and benefit from the expertise and knowledge of state officials. Likewise, the last change is essential to help ensure that the federal government provides adequate funding to states to implement the required mandates.

Governors are committed to working cooperatively with the federal government to develop and implement realistic, achievable standards that will enhance efforts to prevent document fraud and other illegal activity related to the issuance of driver's licenses and identification documents. We appreciate your willingness to work with states to address our concerns. If all three changes are included in the amendment it will provide a reasonable compromise for addressing this issue.

Thank you again for your consideration and assistance.

Sincerely,

RAYMOND C. SCHEPPACH,
Executive Director.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the modified amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?

Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.

The amendment (No. 3807), as modified, was agreed to.

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas for his generous comments and for presenting a very compelling case for passing this legislation, a case that says we cannot delay; the stakes are too high; the issues are too compelling in the war against terrorism. I thank him for his support and for his hard work on this very important issue.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

AMENDMENTS NOS. 3798, 3799, 3800, 3911, 3912, 3932, 3864, 3772, 3813 AND 3717, EN BLOC

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I have a number of amendments from both sides of the aisle that have been cleared by both of the managers of the bill. I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to the consideration of the following amendments, en bloc: Coleman amendment 3798, Coleman amendment 3799, Coleman amendment 3800, Snowe amendment 3911, Snowe amendment 3912, Snowe amendment 3932, Frist amendment 3864, Bingaman amendment 3772, Reed of Rhode Island amendment 3813, and Feinstein amendment 3717.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendments are pending.

Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed to en bloc and that the motions to reconsider be laid
upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that we proceed to the
consideration of the Bingaman-Domenici amendment 3771, as modified. I send the modification to the desk.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the modification be agreed to, that the amendment, as modified, be agreed to, and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment (No. 3771), as modified, was agreed to.

AMENDMENT NO. 3756

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of the Graham-Durbin amendment No. 3756.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will please report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maine [Ms. COLLINS], for Mr. Graham of Florida, proposes an amendment numbered 3756.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish additional education and training requirements for the National Intelligence Authority)

On page 108, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

SEC. 153. ADDITIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING REQUIREMENTS.

(a) FINDINGS.-Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Foreign language education is essential for the development of a highly-skilled workforce for the intelligence community.

(2) Since September 11, 2001, the need for language proficiency levels to meet required national security functions has been raised, and the ability to comprehend and articulate technical and scientific information in foreign languages has become critical.

(b) LINGUISTIC REQUIREMENTS.-(1) The National Intelligence Director shall-

(A) identify the linguistic requirements for the National Intelligence Authority;

(B) identify specific requirements for the range of linguistic skills necessary for the intelligence community, including proficiency in scientific and technical vocabularies of critical foreign languages; and

(2) In carrying out activities under paragraph (1), the Director shall take into account education grant programs of the Department of Defense and the Department of Education that are in existence as of the date of the enactment of this Act.

(3) Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Director shall submit to Congress a report on the requirements identified under paragraph (1), including the success of the Authority in meeting such requirements. Each report shall notify Congress of any additional resources determined by the Director to be required to meet such requirements.

(4) Each report under paragraph (3) shall be in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

© PROFESSIONAL INTELLIGENCE TRAINING.-The National Intelligence Director shall require the head of each element and component within the National Intelligence Authority who has responsibility for professional intelligence training to periodically review and revise the curriculum for the professional intelligence training of the senior and intermediate level personnel of such element or component in order to-

(1) strengthen the focus of such curriculum on the integration of intelligence collection and analysis throughout the Authority; and

(2) prepare such personnel for duty with other departments, agencies, and element of the intelligence community.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment (No. 3756) was agreed to.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as I indicated, those amendments have all been worked out. They have been cleared on both sides. We are making progress on this bill. There have been a great number of amendments filed. I encourage all Senators to work closely with the managers of the bill to allow us to proceed to consider this bill on Tuesday. We have a great deal of work to be done before that time, but we made progress today.

I also thank those Senators who came forward with their amendments today. Shortly, I will have an announcement about the voting schedule for Monday. We do expect to have a number of stacked votes in the mid to late afternoon. We are working on that list even as we speak.

AMENDMENT NO. 3803

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Cornyn, I send an amendment to the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.

The legislative clerk read as follows.

The Senator from Maine (Ms. COLLINS), for Mr. Cornyn, proposes an amendment numbered 3803.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for enhanced criminal penalties for crimes related to alien smuggling)

At the end of the bill, add the following:

TITLE IV-HUMAN SMUGGLING PENALTY ENHANCEMENT

SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the "Human Smuggling Penalty Enhancement Act of 2004".

SEC. 402. ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR ALIEN SMUGGLING.

Section 274(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324(a)) is amended-

(1) in paragraph (1)-

(A) in subparagraph (A)-

(i) in clause (i)-

(I) by striking "knowing that a person is an alien, brings" and inserting "knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that a person is an alien, brings";

(II) by striking "Commissioner" and inserting "Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security"; and

(III) by inserting "and regardless of whether the person bringing or attempting to bring such alien to the United States intended to violate any criminal law" before the semicolon;

(ii) in clause (iv), by striking "or" at the end;

(iii) in clause (v)-

(I) in subclause (I), by striking ", or" and inserting a semicolon;

(II) in subclause (II), by striking the comma and inserting "; or"; and

(III) by inserting after subclause (II) the following:

"(III) attempts to commit any of the preceding acts; or"; and

(iv) by inserting after clause (v) the following:

"(vi) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that a person is an alien, causes or attempts to cause such alien to be transported or moved across an international boundary, knowing that such transportation or moving is part of such alien's effort to enter or attempt to enter the United States without prior official authorization;"; and

(B) in subparagraph (B)-

(i) in clause (i)-

(I) by striking "or (v)(I)" and inserting ", (v)(I), or (vi)"; and

(II) by striking "10 years" and inserting "20 years";

(ii) in clause (ii), by striking "5 years" and inserting "10 years"; and

(iii) in clause (iii), by striking "20 years" and inserting "35 years";

(2) in paragraph (2)-

(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)-

(i) by inserting ", or facilitates or attempts to facilitate the bringing or transporting," after "attempts to bring"; and

(ii) by inserting "and regardless of whether the person bringing or attempting to bring such alien to the United States intended to violate any criminal law," after "with respect to such alien"; and

(B) in subparagraph (B)-

(i) in clause (ii), by striking ", or" and inserting a semicolon;

(ii) in clause (iii), by striking the comma at the end and inserting "; or";

(iii) by inserting after clause (iii), the following:

"(iv) an offense committed with knowledge or reason to believe that the alien unlawfully brought to or into the United States has engaged in or intends to engage in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)),"; and

(iv) in the matter following clause (iv), as added by this subparagraph, by striking "3 nor more than 10 years" and inserting "5 years nor more than 20 years"; and

(3) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking "5 years" and inserting "10 years".

SEC. 403. AMENDMENT TO SENTENCING GUIDELINES RELATING TO ALIEN SMUGGLING OFFENSES.

(a) DIRECTIVE TO UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION.-Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 18, United States Code, and in accordance with this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall review and, as appropriate, amend the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and related policy statements to implement the provisions of this title.

(b) REQUIREMENTS.-In carrying out this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall-

(1) ensure that the Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements reflect-

(A) the serious nature of the offenses and penalties referred to in this title;

(B) the growing incidence of alien smuggling offenses; and

(2) consider the extent to which the Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements adequately address whether the guideline offense levels and enhancements for violations of the sections amended by this title-

(A) sufficiently deter and punish such offenses; and

(B) adequately reflect the enhanced penalties established under this title;

(3) maintain reasonable consistency with other relevant directives and sentencing guidelines;

(4) account for any additional aggravating or mitigating circumstances that might justify exceptions to the generally applicable sentencing ranges;

(5) make any necessary conforming changes to the Sentencing Guidelines; and

(6) ensure that the Sentencing Guidelines adequately meet the purposes of sentencing under section 3553(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code.

Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be laid aside.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

AMENDMENT NO. 3768

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maine (Ms. COLLINS), for Mr. Baucus, for himself and Mr. Roberts, proposes an amendment numbered 3768.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require an annual report on the allocation of funding within the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department
of the Treasury)

At the end, add the following new section:

SEC. 353. ANNUAL REPORT ON THE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES WITHIN THE OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL.

(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.-It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Treasury should allocate the resources of the Office of Foreign Assets Control to enforce the economic and trade sanctions of the United States in a manner that enforcing such sanctions-

(1) against al Qaeda and groups affiliated with al Qaeda is the highest priority of the Office;

(2) against members of the insurgency in Iraq is the second highest priority of the Office; and

(3) against Iran is the third highest priority of the Office.

(b) REQUIREMENT FOR ANNUAL REPORT.-Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the National Intelligence Director, shall submit to Congress a report on the allocation of resources within the Office of Foreign Assets Control.

(1) a description of-

(A) the allocation of resources within the Office of Foreign Assets Control to enforce the economic and trade sanctions of the United States against terrorist organizations and targeted foreign countries during the fiscal year prior to the fiscal year in which such report is submitted; and

(B) the criteria on which such allocation is based;

(2) a description of any proposed modifications to such allocation; and

(3) an explanation for any such allocation that is not based on prioritization of threats determined using appropriate criteria, including the likelihood that-

(A) a terrorist organization or targeted foreign country-

(i) will sponsor or plan a direct attack against the United States or the interests of the United States; or

(ii) is participating in or maintaining a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons development program; or

(B) a targeted foreign country-

(i) is financing, or allowing the financing, of a terrorist organization within such country; or

(ii) is providing safe haven to a terrorist organization within such country.

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.-Notwithstanding section 341 or any other provision of this Act, this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be set aside.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SESSIONS). Without objection, it is so ordered.

AMENDMENT NO. 3768, AS MODIFIED

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Baucus amendment No. 3768 be modified with the change at the
desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is modified.

The amendment (No. 3768), as modified, is as follows:

At the end, add the following new section:

SEC. 353. ANNUAL REPORT ON THE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES WITHIN THE OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL.

(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.-It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Treasury is not currently according emerging threats to the United States the proper priority and should reallocate the current resources of the Office of Foreign Assets Control to enforce the economic and trade sanctions of the United States in a manner that enforcing such sanctions substantially increases the priority given to-

(1) al Qaeda and groups affiliated with al Qaeda;

(2) members of the insurgency in Iraq; and

(3) Iran.

(1) a description of-

(B) the criteria on which such allocation is based;

(2) a description of any proposed modifications to such allocation; and

(3) an explanation for any such allocation that is not based on prioritization of threats determined using appropriate criteria, including the likelihood that-

(A) a terrorist organization or targeted foreign country-

(i) will sponsor or plan a direct attack against the United States or the interests of the United States; or

(ii) is participating in or maintaining a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons development program; or

(B) a targeted foreign country-

(i) is financing, or allowing the financing, of a terrorist organization within such country; or

(ii) is providing safe haven to a terrorist organization within such country.

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.-Notwithstanding section 341 or any other provision of this Act, this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

AMENDMENT NO. 3903

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside and call up the Stevens amendment No. 3903.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maine [Ms. COLLINS], for Mr. STEVENS, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. WARNER, and Mr. KYL, proposes an
amendment numbered 3903.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike section 201, relating to public disclosure of intelligence funding)

On page 115, strike line 15 and all that follows through page 115, line 25.

Ms. COLLINS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Meet Civic Sage

You can ask about:

National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004

Navigation

Our Mission