Congressional Record: November 12, 2002 (Senate)
Page S10831-S10832
HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. SPECTER. The issue of homeland security, I believe, is one of
great urgency. I believe that September 11, 2001, could have been
prevented had we had all of the so-called dots on the board about
warnings which had been received. I do not agree with CIA Director
George Tenet that another September 11 is imminent. CIA Director Tenet
made that statement about a month ago.
We had a lot of warning signals about 9/11. There was an FBI report
in July of 2001 about a suspicious man taking flight training in
Phoenix, that he had a big picture of Osama bin Laden in his apartment,
which never got to headquarters. That warning was mired in FBI
bureaucracy.
There was information that two al-Qaida members from Kuala Lumpur
were planning to come to the United States; that it was known to the
CIA but never told to the FBI or the INS, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service. They came in unimpeded and were two of the
pilots on the suicide missions on September 11.
Then there was the effort by the Minneapolis office of the FBI to
secure a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for
Zacarias Moussaoui which had the wrong standard. Had the FBI gotten
into Moussaoui's computer, there was a treasure trove of information
about potential attack.
Then there was the warning to the National Security Agency on
September 10 about something to happen the next day. It was not
translated until September 12, but it was too late. Then an al-Qaida
man named Murak confessed in 1996 of plans by al-Qaida to fly a plane
loaded with explosives into the CIA headquarters. We already had the
attack on the Trade Center in 1993. Osama bin Laden was under
indictment for killing Americans in Mogadishu in 1993, and under
indictment for the Embassy bombings in Africa in 1998. Osama bin Laden
was on record as declaring a worldwide jihad against the United States.
We had a lot of warnings, and had all of those dots been put on the
board, I think there was a veritable blueprint and I said as much when
FBI Director Mueller came to testify before the Judiciary Committee
last June.
We had the homeland security bill on the floor for a full month. We
started debating it on September 3. We did not finish until October 1,
and it was never ever passed. When President Bush came to Pennsylvania
back in late October, I urged the President to call a special session
of Congress to pass homeland security. It seems to me that is our job.
The President is emphatic that the first thing he does every day is
to review the intelligence briefings. There is grave concern that there
could be another attack. I am glad that the President is insistent that
Congress pass homeland security before we go
[[Page S10832]]
out of this lame duck session. While it is important to pass homeland
security, it is important that it be enacted with the appropriate
provisions. One provision that I have discussed at some length is to
have the Secretary be able to direct the intelligence agencies which
will all be under one umbrella. The idea to have the intelligence
agencies under one umbrella, I think, has been generally agreed
upon. This is not a new idea; it has been proposed for a long time.
I was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1995 and 1996.
I saw the turf wars between the CIA and the FBI, the NSA and Defense
Intelligence, et cetera. Legislation was introduced by this Senator to
bring everything under one umbrella of the Central Intelligence Agency,
and that legislation has languished. Mine was not the only idea; it has
been proposed by others over the years. The turf battles have precluded
it. Now, with an Office of Homeland Security, we have a chance to get
it under one umbrella.
It is vital the Secretary be able to direct these analytical
departments to work together. Otherwise, the turf battles will go on. I
am not saying the CIA Director should lose control over his agents
around the world or the FBI Director should lose control over FBI
agents in the United States or abroad, or any other Department should
lose control over their agents. But when you pull the analysis and
bring all the analysts under one umbrella, there is the point that
there has to be direction so all the dots are placed on one screen.
The language is very simple. It is:
On behalf of the Secretary, subject to disapproval by the
President, to direct the agencies described under subsection
(f)(2) to provide intelligence information, analysis of
intelligence information, and such other intelligence-
regulated information, as the Assistant Secretary for
Information Analysis determines necessary.
That is the operative language. The other parts of the bill contain
an enumeration of all of the agencies which will be under one umbrella
for analysis.
There has been considerable argument and disagreement over labor-
management provisions. This has been discussed at some length by this
Senator and others in colloquies. Part of the controversy arose because
of initial confusion as to whether the two paragraphs added by the
amendment by Senator Nelson of Nebraska--that is the other Senator
Nelson, Mr. President; may the Record show that Senator Bill Nelson is
presiding at the moment--whether they were in addition to or in place
of. And if they were in place of, that would have eliminated the
President's national security waiver which is indispensable and should
not be eliminated.
In colloquy with Senator Lieberman, it was agreed to that these
provisions would be in addition to. So that asked that collective
bargaining in current law would stand, which provides in subsection A:
(A) the agency or subdivision has a primary function
intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative or national
security work, and
(B) the provisions of this chapter cannot be applied to
that agency or subdivision in a manner consistent with
national security requirements and considerations.
Then the Nelson amendment would have added the language:
(1) the mission and responsibilities of the agency or
subdivision materially change; and
(2) a majority of such employees within such agency or
subdivision have--as their primary duty--intelligence,
counterintelligence, or investigative work directly related
to terrorism investigation.
I believe that language would be satisfactory to all parties.
Then with respect to the flexibility which the President has sought
as to the other five chapters, that format would be followed so that,
in essence, where we have intelligence, counterintelligence, or
investigative work, there would be the flexibility for a national
security waiver as determined by the President.
Now I have just come from a meeting with Republican leadership with
the President, and there has been work over the past weekend on this
issue. As yet, we do not know precisely what provisions have been
agreed to. It is my hope that the language which I had suggested in
September and which has been before all of the Senators who were
working on the final analysis, plus this language, will be incorporated
in the final bill. I will be in touch with the officials in the
administration yet this afternoon to try to see to it that these
provisions which are agreeable to all sides--both labor and management,
to solve the labor-management controversy--can be made part of the
bill, and that the language which would give the Secretary the
authority to direct the analysis sections will also be included in the
bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the language giving the
Secretary of Homeland Defense authority to direct the analytical
agencies be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks along
with the language both as to collective bargaining and the flexibility
in the other five divisions of labor-management.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
On page 24, strike line 4 and insert the following:
(19) On behalf of the Secretary, subject to disapproval by
the President, to direct the agencies described under
subsection (f)(2) to provide intelligence information,
analyses of intelligence information, and such other
intelligence-related information as the Assistant Secretary
for Information Analysis determines necessary.
(20) To perform such other duties relating to
(A) the agency or subdivision has as a primary function
intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national
security work, and
(B) the provision of this chapter [5 USCS Sec. Sec. 7101
et. seq.] cannot be applied to that agency or subdivision in
a matter of consistent with national security requirements
and considerations.
In addition to the requirements of sub-sections (A) and (B)
the President may issue an order excluding any agency or
subdivision thereof from coverage under this chapter [5 USCS
Sec. Sec. 7101 et seq.] if the President determines that--
(1) the mission and responsibilities of the agency or
subdivision materially change; and
(2) a majority of such employees within such agency or
subdivision have--as their primary duty--intelligence,
counterintelligence, or investigative work directly related
to terrorism investigation.
Notwithstanding any other provision, the authority of the
President under Section 9701 on establishment of a human
resources management system shall require that the President
determines that:
(A) the agency or subdivision has as a primary function
intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national
security work, and
(B) the provisions of chapter 43, 51, 53, 71, 75 or 77
cannot be applied to that agency or subdivision in a matter
consistent with national security requirements and
considerations.
In addition to the requirements of sub-sections (A) and (B)
the President may issue an order providing for waiver of the
provisions of chapters 43, 51, 53, 71, 75 or 77 if the
President determines that--
(1) the mission and responsibilities of the agency or
subdivision materially change; and
(2) a majority of such employees within such agency or
subdivisions have--as their primary duty--intelligence,
counterintelligence, or investigative work directly related
to terrorism investigation.
____________________
