Congressional Record: April 12, 2007 (Senate) Page S4406-S4407 INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, let me take this opportunity to extend my deep appreciation to my good friend, Senator Reid, for his very genuine persistence in pursuing this Intelligence authorization bill. He has worked hard, both as minority leader and as majority leader, to try to make this happen. I suspect Senator Bond and I will have some fairly strong words to say in agreement about this because I think both of us are very dismayed that despite the very considerable efforts of Vice Chairman Bond and myself--we operate very closely together--to get agreement on this bill, there is still an objection to its consideration, as I understand. It is almost inconceivable to me we are forced to come to this point of cloture and motions to proceed and all kinds of things on a national security bill. I do not understand that, where that comes from, why the motivation, how that happens. In any event, we are talking about the authorization bill of the Intelligence Committee for 2007; and this is already the period for the 2008 authorization bill. It is inexcusable. From 1978 through 2004-- that is a long time, 1978 to 2004--every year, there was an authorization bill, like every year there is a military authorization, Armed Services authorization bill. It happens in all major committees. The Senate had an unbroken 27-year record of having authorization bills every single year. This year and the last year--and I think the preceding year--we did not. It is very frustrating to the Senator from Missouri and myself. This should be considered, and is considered, must-pass legislation. It is in the national interest. We are in the middle of a war on terror. Our continued military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan calls for an analysis of what is going on in the intelligence community, putting it into authorization form so it can go on to be discussed and debated on the floor. It is a matter of life and death. But we are being blocked again from considering a bill that provides the legislative roadmap for America's intelligence programs. America is not meant to work that way. Similar to the bills I have mentioned, you have to get authorization. It is done routinely. It is very puzzling. Now, there are 16 separate provisions under our 2007 authorization bill--we are in the period for the 2008 authorization bill--enhancing and clarifying the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. These provisions include improvements to the way we approach and manage human intelligence, which the vice chairman and I feel very strongly about, information sharing, and the ability to manage intelligence community resources. Those are words with a great deal behind them. I, like many of my colleagues, have been increasingly concerned about the seemingly endless stream of leaks of classified information. This bill includes provisions improving the authority of the Director of National Intelligence, whom we put in charge to look at matters such as these, and the Director of the CIA to protect intelligence sources and methods and a provision to increase the penalties for unauthorized disclosure of the identity of a covert agent. The bill also contains numerous provisions intended to improve oversight of the intelligence community. We have not been doing that in the sense that we should, and Vice Chairman Bond and I worked very closely together on this issue. He is a ferocious pursuer of intelligence wherever he can find it, and he usually manages to bring it back with him. Section 408 will establish a statutory inspector general for the intelligence community. The DNI, the Director of National Intelligence, has used his power to create an IG, but the power to do so doesn't mean a requirement to do so. So we would strengthen that position in this legislation and make it more accountable to Congress. Section 434 of the bill strengthens accountability and oversight of the technical intelligence agencies by providing a very important matter: that the heads of the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency are to be appointed by the President, as they have been but with the advice and consent of the Senate. That has not been the case. This is an enormous fountain of intelligence, and we think they ought to be responsive to the two Intelligence Committees in the Senate and the House. My colleagues may be surprised that the head of an agency with as central a role in the intelligence community as the National Security Agency or an agency with the enormous budget of the National Reconnaissance Office is not appointed with Senate confirmation. It is really shocking. Whether it was an oversight or not, I have no idea, but it is wrong. Senator Mikulski pointed this out. This bill would correct that. Section 108, cosponsored in committee last year by Senators Levin and Hagel, seeks to improve the timely flow of information to congressional intelligence committees. In other words, things can't be put off for a year or 2 years, 6 months or whatever. We try to enforce our view that we are an oversight group and we intend to be treated as such and we will not be treated in a lesser way. Similar language was included in the intelligence reform legislation that passed the Senate in 2004 and in S. 4, which passed the Senate last month. There are requirements for the provision of specific information, including a report on the implementation of the Detainee Treatment Act and a separate report on the operation of clandestine detention facilities. These are not trivial matters, as the Presiding Officer understands, and they cannot be dealt with trivially by this body, and therefore we need this bill. These provisions are all intended to improve our ability to make decisions [[Page S4407]] leading to better intelligence for the military and policymakers. There is no reason the Senate cannot pass the bill and do so quickly so that we can conference with the House and do that quickly so that we can pass the bill, the authorization bill of 2007, here in April of 2007 and proceed on. I will close by saying: I would remind my colleagues that we are at war in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and we are at war in scores--or potentially at war in scores of countries around the world where al- Qaida is strong and growing, or groups such as the Taliban or others are growing. We can't have delay. This is an important bill. I encourage my colleagues to vote for the motion to invoke cloture and allow this process to move forward. Mr. President, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized. Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wholeheartedly join with my new chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Rockefeller, in urging our colleagues to work constructively with us in reestablishing congressional oversight of our intelligence community. More than 30 years ago, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was formed to address a serious problem, and that problem was previously a complete lack of congressional oversight of the U.S. intelligence operations. The attacks of September 11, 2001, and the findings of the 9/11 Commission confirmed that congressional oversight of intelligence was still seriously lacking in many areas. With the painful lessons of 9/11 in mind and the threats laid out by Chairman Rockefeller, it is more important than ever that we perform our oversight role. Unfortunately, the last Congress failed to see an intelligence authorization bill pass the Senate, although Chairman Roberts and Vice Chairman Rockefeller tried hard to pass one. There were political reasons--neither side of the aisle was blameless in that regard--but it did not happen. When Senator McConnell asked me to be vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee for this session of Congress, I wrote a letter with suggestions to the chairman on the priorities, and at the top of the list was passing the fiscal year 2007 Intelligence Authorization Act. Chairman Rockefeller and I strongly agreed that if we were to be able to conduct constructive oversight and make our suggestions and our requests and demands known, we would have to pass this bill. We have to pass authorization bills. We have been in agreement on that matter since the beginning. We have a managers' amendment we will be describing in more detail which we will offer which addresses some of the serious concerns other Members and I have had for some time, and I would ask anybody who has concerns about the underlying bill to look at the managers' amendment, which I think addresses most, if not all, of the serious concerns that might be raised. We have to reassert our oversight. Now, there may be some officials in the executive branch who prefer a lack of congressional oversight. I sure understand their positions. If I were running an agency, I wouldn't want to have Congress looking over my shoulder. But that is not how the system works. We have a responsibility to provide the funding and oversee how they are carrying out their duties, and I suggest this bill will give us the power to do so and ensure constructive accountability. One of the most significant means of providing such accountability is authorizing the appropriations for the intelligence community's national intelligence program, or NIP. For that reason, the authorization of the appropriations section in this bill may be its most important section. Is this bill perfect? No. There is no such thing as perfect legislation--I have never seen one, and I don't expect to see one--but we all get an opportunity and will have an opportunity to vote to improve it. The bill, as reported, is largely the same bill as last year and contains many provisions sought by intelligence community agencies to help them in their job. For example, the bill provides the Director of National Intelligence with additional authorities to improve information access across the intelligence community. So there can no longer be stovepipes of information not shared among the agencies collecting it. The DNI is given full access to human intelligence and the authority to improve access and coordination across the community. Nearly half of the provisions contained in this bill were requested by the intelligence community for fiscal year 2006 and 2007. We are in the process of receiving the IC request for 2008, as it clears OMB. When we pass this bill, we will have addressed 23 of the 31 cleared provisions that are contained in the IC's fiscal 2008 request. There is also included an example of where our committee wants to take some initiative. The bill creates within the office of the DNI a National Space Intelligence Center--or we may call it an office--to address intelligence collections related to our space assets or threats to the United States from space. The need for this office was emphasized recently by the successful antisatellite weapons test by the People's Republic of China. Creating this new office or center is an example of the forward-leaning oversight that corrects a present deficiency within the IC. It is time the Senate reassert its constitutional role in oversight. Does the process have warts? As I said, of course it does, but it is a critical component of our national security. I urge all Senators to work with us constructively to pass the bill. We look forward to hearing from both sides on the amendments they have, and maybe we will be able to clear many of them and get this bill passed. We ask that Members bring those amendments to us as soon as possible. Again, I strongly urge and request my colleagues who recognize that intelligence is so important in this global war on terror declared on us by al-Qaida and radical Islamists--not a war we started but a war they started, that can only be countered by good intelligence--help us get to the process of improving our intelligence community and our intelligence performance. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his leadership, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized. ____________________ Congressional Record: April 12, 2007 (Senate) Page S4413-S4428 INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007--MOTION TO PROCEED The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 372, which the clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: Motion to proceed to S. 372, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government. Cloture Motion The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order and pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: Cloture Motion We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 20, S. 372, Intelligence Authorization. Harry Reid, Sherrod Brown, Claire McCaskill, Jack Reed, Jon Tester, Patty Murray, Jeff Bingaman, Amy Klobuchar, Blanche L. Lincoln, Evan Bayh, Benjamin L. Cardin, Max Baucus, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer, Byron L. Dorgan, Ken Salazar, Dick Durbin. The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the motion to proceed to consideration of S. 372, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Intelligence Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk called the roll. Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 94, nays 3, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 129 Leg.] YEAS--94 Akaka Alexander Allard Baucus Bayh Bennett Bingaman Bond Boxer Brown Brownback Bunning Burr Byrd Cantwell Cardin Carper Casey Chambliss Clinton Cochran Coleman Collins Conrad Corker Cornyn Craig Crapo DeMint Dole Domenici Dorgan Durbin Ensign Enzi Feingold Feinstein Graham Gregg Hagel Harkin Hatch Hutchison Inhofe Inouye Isakson Kennedy Kerry Klobuchar Kohl Landrieu Lautenberg Leahy Levin Lieberman Lincoln Lott Lugar Martinez McCain McCaskill McConnell Menendez Mikulski Murkowski Murray Nelson (FL) Nelson (NE) Obama Pryor Reed Reid Roberts Rockefeller Salazar Sanders Schumer Sessions Shelby Smith Snowe Specter Stabenow Stevens Sununu Tester Thomas Thune Vitter Voinovich Warner Webb Whitehouse Wyden NAYS--3 Coburn Grassley Kyl NOT VOTING--3 Biden Dodd Johnson The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 94, the nays are 3. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from Montana is recognized. Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Without objection, it is so ordered. [...] Congressional Record: April 12, 2007 (Senate) Page S4428-S4429 INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the bill by title. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: A bill (S. 372) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Intelligence Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes. Cloture Motion Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion. The legislative clerk read as follows: Cloture Motion We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 20, S. 372, the Intelligence Authorization bill of 2007. Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Russell D. Feingold, Jay Rockefeller, Evan Bayh, Patty Murray, Dick Durbin, Jeff Bingaman, Robert Menendez, B.A. Mikulski, Dianne Feinstein, Bill Nelson, E. Benjamin Nelson, S. Whitehouse, Byron L. Dorgan, Blanche L. Lincoln, Ron Wyden. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory live quorum be waived and the cloture vote occur on Monday, April 16, at 5:30 p.m. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of the bill on Monday at 3 p.m. and that Senator Rockefeller be recognized at that time to offer a managers' amendment on behalf of himself and Senator Bond. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. REID. Mr. President, earlier today the Senate invoked cloture on the motion to proceed to the fiscal year 2007 Intelligence authorization bill. However, as a result of objections from the other side, the Senate now finds itself in the unfortunate position of having to run out the clock for the next several days rather than promptly considering and completing action on this important legislation. [[Page S4429]] Let me remind my colleagues of the long road we have been down with this bill already. The previous Republican-controlled Congress failed to pass an intelligence authorization bill in fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007--2 years in a row. That is an unprecedented and unacceptable record for this body: prior to that, Congress had passed this bill every single year for 27 years, often with the bipartisan support of every Senator. As my colleagues know, the Intelligence authorization bill funds the operations of the 16 agencies of the U.S. intelligence community-- including the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, the Defense Department--and all the critical work they do to keep Americans safe and fight the war on terror. It includes essential initiatives that would improve our efforts to fight terrorism and control weapons of mass destruction, enhance our intelligence collection capabilities, and strengthen intelligence oversight. Blocking the passage of this bill, as a handful of Senators on the other side of the aisle have done over the last couple of years, has left Congress silent on these important matters and made America less secure. Most of us in the Senate recognize how important it is to pass this bill. We know it is not a partisan issue, that there are no political points to be scored on either side. But I am increasingly disappointed at the continued obstructionism by several Republicans on a matter of national security. Earlier this year, Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond attempted to bring this bill up for consideration. We were told the objections of a single Senator on the other side of the aisle blocked their efforts. I have heard that some Senators on the other side of the aisle are interested in offering amendments, yet at this time none of these amendments have surfaced or seen the light of day. I would certainly like to be reasonable and accommodate every Senator's interest in debating amendments offered in good faith, but I am increasingly concerned that we are seeing obstructionism and delay tactics, rather than productive debate. Some may wonder what is behind the delay. At a time of war, why would a handful of Senators be willing to hold up a bill that is crucial to our national security? Why would a group of Senators hold up a bill that has always passed quickly, with little debate or amendment? Why would they hold up a bill that enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support? It appears the answer lies not in the legislation before us now but the legislation the Senate will turn to next: A Medicare bill that will lower drug costs for seniors and people with disabilities by giving the Federal Government the power to negotiate drug prices with some of this Nation's most powerful and profitable companies. This is not good faith debate--it is a cynical effort by the drug companies--their lobbyists in Gucci shoes and chauffeured limousines-- and their supporters--to hold this national security bill hostage and delay the Senate from acting on legislation to help society's most vulnerable. So I ask my colleagues to consider this fair notice: unless I see some signs of good faith from the other side of the aisle toward a reasonable timeframe for considering a reasonable number of amendments, I will file cloture on this bill tomorrow. The Senate has a lot of work ahead of it and it should begin with the swift consideration and passage of this bill. ____________________