On May 14, I introduced the `Women's Pension Equity Act of 1996,' as a first step toward making pension law simpler and more equitable for women. The bipartisan legislation begins to tackle the problems created by a pension system that is not designed for working women, either those in the workforce or in the home. This amendment is one piece of that legislation.
In the population as a whole, women make up 60 percent of seniors over 65--but 75 percent of the elderly poor. Unmarried, widowed, and divorced women are particularly apt to be living in poverty. Nearly four times as many widows live in poverty as married women of the same age.
Too many elderly women spend their retirement years in poverty because less than one-third of all female retirees have pensions, and the majority of those that do, earn less than $5,000 a year. Women who are widowed or divorced are particularly hard hit. The current pension laws are often confusing and illogical, and leave widows and divorced women without any of the pension benefits earned by their husbands over many years of marriage. It is estimated that nearly 80 percent of women who are poor as widows were not poor before their husbands died.
I am keenly aware that we must address broader issues as well. And we will address them. We should focus on making participation in private pension plans easier, and not the game of roulette which all too often leaves people surprised at their retirement. This amendment is one step in the right direction, however, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment today.
The women, now divorced, who have spent their lives married to men in the military, should not spend their retirement years in poverty because of a loophole in the law.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4361) was agreed to.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments to S. 1745, offered by the Select Committee on Intelligence , be considered and agreed to, en bloc, and considered original text for the purpose of further amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee amendments were agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Thurmond be allowed to modify the committee amendments in more than one place with amendment No. 4254; that no further amendments be in order to the Intelligence Committee amendments; and that the Thurmond modification be deemed to be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 4254) was deemed agreed to, as follows:
On page 219, line 11, insert `, for the Secretary's consideration,' after `of Defense'.
On page 223, strike out lines 1 and 2 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
`(a) Establishment: The National Imagery and Mapping Agency is a combat support agency of the Department of Defense and has significant national missions.
On page 223, strike out line 17 and all that follows through page 224, line 2 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
`(3) If an officer of the armed forces is appointed to the position of Director under this subsection, the position is a position of importance and responsibility for purposes of section 601 of this title and carries the grade of lieutenant general, or, in the case of an officer of the Navy, vice admiral.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, for approximately the last 7 weeks, the Armed Services Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence have been engaged in negotiations in an attempt to settle differences between the two committees on a range of intelligence reform measures in both the Defense authorization bill and the Intelligence authorization bill. I am pleased to report that most of our differences have been worked out. With regard to the Defense authorization bill, all our areas of difference have been completely settled.
Mr. President, on May 13, 1996, S. 1745, the Defense authorization bill, was referred to the Select Committee on Intelligence on sequential referral. This unprecedented action has delayed consideration of the Defense authorization bill and, in my view, made it more difficult to work out sound compromises in a timely manner. Although I have been clear and consistent in expressing my willingness to negotiate, I have made it equally clear that I would not be coerced into accepting bad compromises simply because the Defense authorization bill had been taken hostage.
The Intelligence Committee reported S. 1745 out of committee on June 11, 1996, with a series of proposed amendments. With three relatively minor exceptions, I support the Intelligence Committee's amendments. With regard to the three areas where I do not agree with the Intelligence Committee's amendments, we have nonetheless worked out agreements. It is my intention to offer three perfecting amendments to the package of Intelligence Committee amendments. These have been cleared with the Intelligence Committee. Overall, therefore, I believe that we have an acceptable agreement.
Let me briefly describe the three areas that are the subject of the amendment that I will offer along with Senator Nunn.
The Intelligence Committee amendment would strike several sections from the Defense authorization bill that do not relate directly to the National Imagery and Mapping Agency. It also would insert a new section 906 relating to the role of the Director of Central Intelligence in the appointment and evaluation of the heads of certain intelligence agencies within the Department of Defense. With one exception, I do not oppose these changes. The amendment offered by myself and Senator Nunn would modify the Intelligence Committee language having to do with performance evaluations. In my view the Director of Central Intelligence should not be in the business of writing performance evaluations for the heads of defense agencies. The DCI himself has confirmed that this would be inappropriate. The alternative that Senator Nunn and I have offered would allow the DCI to provide input for consideration by the Secretary of Defense in preparation for his annual evaluations of the Defense Department intelligence agency heads. This would make it clear that the authority to write such evaluations resides with the Secretary of Defense, but that the views of the DCI must be taken into account.
The amendment offered by the Intelligence Committee makes a number of changes to the Armed Services Committee's reported legislation establishing the National Imagery and Mapping Agency. For the most part, these changes are the product of agreements that we have reached with the Select Committee over the last few weeks, with two exceptions. I will briefly describe these areas and the changes that the Thurmond/Nunn amendment will make.
First, the Intelligence Committee would strike the reference in the establishment clause to the National Imagery and Mapping Agency being a combat support agency. Since there are ambiguities regarding this issue in title 10 of the United States Code, and since the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have insisted on NIMA being a combat support agency, the amendment that I am offering with Senator Nunn will restore the language on combat support to the establishment clause. Our amendment would also clarify that the new agency will also have `significant national missions' to make absolutely clear that it serves more than tactical military operations.
Second, the Intelligence Committee proposes a waiver of the cap on three star general officers for the director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, if the director is a military officer. The Armed Services Committee has a long standing position in opposition to providing waivers to this cap for defense agency heads. Senator Nunn and I simply propose to eliminate this waiver, while leaving the Intelligence Committee's language regarding the director otherwise unchanged.
Mr. President, given that the amendment offered by Senator Nunn and myself is agreed to between the two committees, it would be my recommendation that the Intelligence Committee amendment, as modified also be adopted. I believe that Senator Nunn and I have proposed reasonable and justifiable adjustments to the Intelligence Committee amendment. It is my intention to oppose any effort to undermine the agreements that have been reached between the two committees, either on the floor or in conference.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Select Committee on Intelligence has been engaged over the last year in an intense examination of the Intelligence Community and its role in the post-cold-war world. The Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997 reflects the conclusions of the Committee and its proposals for renewal and reform of U.S. intelligence and I hope the Senate will have an opportunity to vote on these proposals in the near future. Similarly, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997, as reported by the Armed Services Committee contained a number of intelligence reform provisions, including authorization for a major reorganization of the intelligence community through the creation of a new agency, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, as well as a number of provisions directly conflicting with the committee's efforts this year to make substantial improvements in the management and operation of U.S. intelligence activities. In order to consider these provisions in the context of our overall reform effort, the Intelligence Committee sought referral of the Defense bill, pursuant to the Committee's charter, Senate Resolution 400.
After careful review, including extensive discussions and negotiations at the staff and member level with the Armed Services Committee and with the Director of Central Intelligence , the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the committee voted to report the bill with amendments on June 11--well before the expiration of the 30 days of session allotted in Senate Resolution 400 for consideration upon referral.
These amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act, along with the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997, S. 1718, reflect the conclusions this committee has reached through 6 years of efforts aimed at making the U.S. intelligence community operate more effectively, more efficiently, and with greater accountability in light of the significant changes in the world over the last decade. In 1994, this effort led Congress, at the urging of Senator Warner, Senator Graham, and others, to establish a Commission on the Roles and Capabilities of the U.S. Intelligence Community--the `Aspin-Brown Commission'--to conduct a `credible, independent, and objective review' of U.S. intelligence . The Commission was given a deadline of March 1, 1996, with the expectation that its report would inform a legislative debate resulting in enactment of needed changes during this Congress.
Armed with the Commission's report and enlightened by the committee's own examination, including numerous hearings, briefings, and interviews, the Select Committee on Intelligence voted on April 24, 1996, to report S. 1718, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997, containing a number of measures to improve policy guidance to the intelligence community, strengthen the DCI's ability to manage the community on behalf of all intelligence consumers, and enhance the ability of the Congress and the American public to ensure that the secrecy necessary for the conduct of intelligence does not prevent the vigilance and oversight necessary for an effective democracy. The Armed Services Committee took the bill on a 30-day sequential referral as they have done every year since the establishment of the Select Committee on Intelligence .
On May 13, the Armed Services Committee reported out S. 1745, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997, which included a number of provisions for intelligence reorganization, including the creation of a new national imagery agency and a new structure for military intelligence under a Director of Military Intelligence [DMI]. The bill also included a number of other provisions that directly conflicted with the reform attempts of the Intelligence Committee contained in S. 1718. The Intelligence Committee requested referral of the bill to consider these intelligence provisions, pursuant to section 3(b) of Senate Resolution 400, which provides for referral to the Committee of any legislation containing provisions within its jurisdiction for up to thirty days, not counting days on which the Senate is not in session.
During the weeks of negotiations that followed, the Intelligence Committee agreed to a number of changes in S. 1718 to address concerns raised by the Armed Services Committee about protecting the equities of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Notwithstanding that the objective of the reform provisions in S. 1718 was to improve the quality of intelligence provided to all consumers, including the Department of Defense, the Armed Services Committee did not want any change that might diminish the current authority of the Secretary of Defense, who now controls about 85 percent of the intelligence community budget. The Intelligence Committee is concerned that the current arrangement, under which the Director of Central Intelligence is responsible for ensuring the nations intelligence needs are met effectively and efficiently yet has direct authority over only the CIA--which represents only a small portion of the intelligence budget--has led to problems. One clear example is the recent revelations regarding several billion dollars at the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) in funds that were never expended and were carried forward year after year.
As the current DCI John Deutch, who was formerly Deputy Secretary of Defense, testified on April 24,
[t]he Deputy Secretary of Defense has got a tremendous set of issues covering a much larger range of resources--10 times--managing ten times the resources * * * of the whole intelligence community. So to say that you are going to go to the deputy--and I am not talking about personalities--and say to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, why didn't you catch this, he's going to say, well, I count on the DCI to keep track of this and to let the Secretary of Defense know. So in some sense, if we are going to say that the Director of Central Intelligence does not view himself or herself as being responsible for the NRO, fundamentally nobody will be.
The Director of Central Intelligence is in a unique position to balance the cost and effectiveness of intelligence programs throughout the government. It makes sense to hold this person responsible for ensuring that the various elements of the intelligence community are more responsive to this national objective then to parochial, turf-driven goals that too often typify bureaucracies. Yet he lacks the authority needed to accomplish this objective, particularly with regard to the intelligence elements within the Department of Defense. The DCI can be given enhanced authority without removing the elements of the intelligence community from the various agencies in which they reside or interfering with the ability of those agency heads to manage their departments, i.e., without creating a `Department of Intelligence .' The reform provisions in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 were designed to accomplish this goal.
This fundamental difference of opinion over the need to strengthen the authority of the DCI to match his responsibility as the overall manager of US intelligence made reaching consensus with the Armed Services Committee over its provisions in the DOD bill and the provisions in the Intelligence bill difficult.
However, both sides made accommodations and ultimately resolved all but a few issues, agreeing to changes in both bills. On June 6, the Armed Services report S. 1718 with amendments that reflected the consensus and one remaining area of disagreement. The next week, on June 11, the Intelligence Committee reported S.1745, the DOD Authorization bill, with amendments that similarly reflected the compromises reached with Armed Services Committee. Subsequently, the Armed Services Committee proposed some changes to our amendments, which we agreed to.
The area of disagreement that remains is a provision in the Intelligence bill that gives the DCI the ability to make adjustments in the allocation of funds within the National Foreign Intelligence Program (NFIP) during the fiscal year to meet unexpected intelligence needs. Director Deutch, along with all former DCI's who testified before the Committee, publicly supported this enhanced authority as important to effective management of the national intelligence community. The DCI has the authority today to make the initial allocations within the NFIP in formulating the budget. However, when unforeseen requirements arise during the fiscal year and funds are available from a lower priority intelligence activity, the DCI does not have the authority to transfer those funds unless the affected agency head does not object. S. 1718 contained a provision to enhance the DCI's authority by shifting the burden to the affected agency to convince the President or his designee that the transfer is unwarranted. The Armed Services Committee objected to giving the DCI this authority and amended S. 1718 to delete the provision.
With the exception of this reprogramming issue, the Committee believes the consensus reached by the two committees preserves significant elements of the reform effort and significantly enhances the ability of the DCI to manage intelligence activities. In addition, the Committee is comfortable that, with the changes agreed upon, the DCI will have the ability to ensure that a new National Imagery and Mapping Agency will be responsive to the needs of all national customers.
Specifically, the amendments we have agreed upon to the National Defense Authorization Act will strike provisions that were in direct conflict with the reform efforts in the Intelligence Authorization Act, a number of which would have seriously hampered the ability of the Intelligence Community to function even under existing mechanisms. For example, our amendments strike a prohibition on any non-DOD employee obligating DOD funds. This provision, apparently intended to ensure the DCI did not gain any additional budget execution authority, would have restricted non-DOD employees detailed to DOD intelligence agencies, such as NRO, from managing contracts or performing numerous other tasks they now commonly perform. It also would have interfered with transfers of funds under the Economy Act, which take places regularly when one agency performs a function of common concern on behalf of another agency for reasons of efficiency and effectiveness. In addition, our amendments mandate a larger and more formal role for the DCI in the appointment and evaluation of the heads of the key national agencies: NSA, NRO, and the new NIMA.
As I have noted, the Committee focused a good deal of effort on the provisions in the DOD bill that establish a new National Imagery and Mapping Agency--NIMA. Our amendments add statutory language giving the DCI clear authority to set imagery collection requirements and priorities, and to resolve conflicts among priorities. In addition, the Committee worked out language with Armed Services to ensure that NIMA's mission as stated in its establishment clause includes both combat support and its significant national missions. Finally, our Committee had concerns with the changes Armed Services had made to the provisions relating to the appointment and status of the Director of NIMA as worked out by the Administration. Our amendments restore the balance initially proposed by providing that (1) the Director of NIMA can be either a civilian or a military officer; and (2) that the Secretary of Defense must obtain the concurrence of the DCI, or note the non-concurrence of the DCI, when recommending an individual to the President for appointment as Director of NIMA.
The past few weeks have not been easy, but I believe they have produced a good outcome for U.S. intelligence and the nation and, based on assurances that the leadership of the Armed Services Committee will do likewise, I wish to state my commitment to joining my colleagues in supporting prompt disposition of both bills, opposing any effort to undermine the agreements we have struck, and fully supporting the Senate positions in our respective conferences.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the bill the Senate is now considering, S. 1745, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997, raises many issues essential to our national security. None are more important, however, than the Intelligence Committee's amendments regarding renewal and reform of the Nation's intelligence apparatus, intended to enable that apparatus to respond effectively to the security threats of today and tomorrow.
The amendments under consideration were added to the bill when the Select Committee on Intelligence considered it on sequential referral. All of these amendments have been accepted by the Senate Armed Services Committee during the course of negotiations between our two committees regarding the intelligence provisions in S. 1745 and in S. 1718, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997.
I would like to make special mention of the Intelligence Committee's proposed amendments to the provisions of S. 1745 relating to the new National Imagery and Mapping Agency, or NIMA. NIMA would be created by consolidating nearly a dozen agencies or offices within the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency, including the Defense Mapping Agency, the Central Imagery Office, CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center, into a single agency within the Department of Defense. The creation of NIMA will reduce redundancies in the processing and analysis of imagery, ensure more challenging career opportunities for those in the imagery and mapping fields, and create an important synergy between mapping and imagery--allowing maps to leave the paper and attain all the benefits of today's digital technology.
The creation of NIMA has been jointly proposed by the Director of Central Intelligence , the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The establishment of a single national imagery agency was also endorsed by the Brown Commission. Nevertheless, the creation of NIMA constitutes a major reorganization of U.S.C. intelligence activities and includes the transfer of several imagery-related offices out of the CIA and into the Department of Defense. Accordingly, the Intelligence Committee focused considerable attention on the specific provisions in S. 1745 that would establish NIMA and define its responsibilities. We concluded that these provisions need to be modified in several key respects.
Most important, the committee concluded that the role of the Director of Central Intelligence with respect to the tasking of imagery satellites should be clarified. The DCI must have clear authority to set imagery collection requirements and priorities, and to resolve conflicts among priorities. The DCI has such authority under existing executive orders and presidential decisions, but, in light of the establishment of NIMA as an agency of the Department of Defense, the Committee believes the DCI's authorities should be restated in statute. The committee has amended S. 1745 to include these authorities in both title 10, U.S. Code (together with other provisions establishing NIMA) and in the National Security Act of 1947 in title 50 (which specifies the DCI's authorities as director of the intelligence community).
The committee also focused on the provisions of S. 1745 that define the responsibilities of NIMA to support intelligence consumers outside the Department of Defense. These provisions are especially important because with the consolidation of most of the imagery-related activities of the intelligence community into an agency within the Department of Defense there is a risk that the imagery needs of non-DOD customers might not be met. We concluded that the language of the provisions is sufficient to protect the interests of national consumers but that the provisions should be moved from title 10 to title 50, where they are more appropriately placed since they relate to the authorities of the DCI rather than the organization of the Department of Defense.
The committee was also concerned that, as reported by the Armed Services Committee, the very first provision relating to NIMA in S. 1745 would have stated that NIMA `is a combat support agency of the Department of Defense.' The term `combat support agency' was first used in the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 to describe certain DOD agencies that have wartime support functions and that are subject to periodic review by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs with respect to their combat readiness. The four defense agencies designated by Congress as combat support agencies in 10 U.S. 193 are the Defense Communications Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Defense Logistics Agency, and the Defense Mapping Agency.
When Congress passed the Goldwater-Nichols Act, it specifically declined to list the National Security Agency as a combat support agency because NSA serves customers outside the Department of Defense. Congress, however, subjected NSA to the same JCS review procedures as other combat support agencies but only with respect to its combat support functions. The Intelligence Committee believes that it would have been most appropriate to treat NIMA like NSA, i.e. not list NIMA as a combat support agency but subject it to JCS review with respect to its combat support functions. The Department of Defense and the Armed Services Committee, however, have insisted that NIMA be listed as a combat support agency because the Defense Mapping Agency was listed as a combat support agency.
Given that the Defense Mapping Agency will comprise the largest activity within NIMA, the Intelligence Committee has agreed to have NIMA listed as a combat support agency in 10 U.S.C. 193 for purposes of JCS review (but only with respect to its combat support functions). But we continue to believe that it would be a mistake to establish NIMA as a combat support agency in the very first sentence, even if subsequent statutory provisions specifically state that NIMA also has national missions. The implication would be left that NIMA's primary purpose is to provide combat support, and the imagery support to other customers might suffer as a result.
Accordingly, the Intelligence Committee reported S. 1745 with an amendment to the provision establishing NIMA that would delete the reference to NIMA's establishment as a combat support agency. The Armed Services Committee has proposed to reinsert the reference to NIMA's status as a combat support agency in the establishment provision but to add in the same sentence that NIMA has significant national missions. We would not object to this formulation because it emphasizes that NIMA has two equally important functions: combat support and support for national missions.
Our Committee also had concerns regarding the provisions relating to the appointment and status of the Director of NIMA. The legislative package drafted by the Administration to create NIMA provided that (1) the Director of NIMA could be either a civilian or a military officer; and (2) that the Secretary of Defense must obtain the concurrence of the DCI, or note the non-concurrence of the DCI, when recommending an individual to the President for appointment as Director of NIMA. As reported by the Armed Services Committee, S. 1745 would have required that the Director of NIMA be a military officer and that the Secretary of Defense simply consult the DCI before recommending a nominee to the President. The Armed Services Committee's formulation would have prevented the President from appointing a civilian Director of NIMA (thus implying that NIMA performs exclusively military functions) and would have given the DCI only a minor voice in the appointment of the head of a critical national intelligence agency. The Armed Services Committee formulation was opposed by the DCI and by the Secretary of Defense. Accordingly, the two Committees agreed to amend the bill to revert to the Administration's proposal.
Finally, the two Committees agreed to delete from S. 1745 a provision that would have prohibited the Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency from conducting any inspection, investigation, or audit of NIMA without the written consent of DOD Inspector General.
We believe that, taken together, our amendments will help to clarify the responsibilities of the DCI with respect to the operation of NIMA and will serve to ensure that the imagery needs of consumers outside the Department of Defense are satisfied.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I rise to support the agreement worked out by the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees on the provisions of our respective bills pertaining to the creation of a new DoD agency, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency known as NIMA, and the renewal and reform of the intelligence community.
By way of background, I want to note that the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees have been negotiating over a number of items in our respective authorization bills. In the course of these negotiations, a number of thorny issues have been settled and only one issue remains which relates to a provision in the Intelligence Authorization bill.
I want to make note of one issue in particular that we have worked out. That issue relates to the establishment of a new Department of Defense agency, called the National Imagery and Mapping Agency or NIMA, which combines the Defense Mapping Agency, the Central Imagery Office, and the National Photographic Interpretation Center. NIMA will provide imagery intelligence and mapping support to both the Department of Defense and other agencies of the Government.
An issue arose concerning the designation of NIMA as a combat support agency. Under the agreement reached between our two committees, the new National Imagery and Mapping Agency will be designated in the agency's establishment clause as a combat support agency and it would also state that the Agency has significant national missions to meet the Intelligence Committee's concerns. Director Deutch, in a letter to Senator Thurmond dated June 6, 1996, stated in pertinent part that, and I quote, `The essence of the NIMA concept for both the Intelligence Community and the Department of Defense is that NIMA be a combat support agency.' I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of Director Deutch's letter to Senator Thurmond be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
The Director of Central Intelligence ,
Washington, DC, June 6, 1996.
Hon. Strom Thurmond,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to underscore my previous statements to the leadership of the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on Armed Services concerning legislation creating a National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) and permitting the collection of foreign intelligence on non-U.S. persons in support of U.S. law enforcement.
The essence of the NIMA concept for both the Intelligence Community and the Department of Defense is that NIMA be a combat support agency. At the same time, it is equally important that there be a clear statement of its national mission and that the authorities of the Director of Central Intelligence to manage and support the national mission of NIMA be undiminished except as required to establish NIMA, i.e., the transfer of operational control of CIA employees and funds to NIMA. NIMA must be responsive to the direction of the Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in its combat support role, but it must also follow the direction of the DCI in matters of collection and tasking to satisfy NIMA's national mission. NIMA resource issues obviously affect both the military and national missions and, as the Administration's legislative proposal makes clear, should be decided jointly. I strongly affirm the statements I made on these points during our meeting of May 23, 1996 including the placement of statutory language in titles 10 and 50 of the U.S. Code.
I also believe, as I have indicated in our previous conversations, that it is important to clarify the authority of the Intelligence Community to provide assistance to law enforcement agencies outside the United States by collecting intelligence information on non-U.S. persons. Much progress has been made in this area over the last few years, but I believe it is important to give the Intelligence Community clear statutory authority to provide such assistance so that our agencies can work together in an efficient and effective manner. Both the Intelligence Community and the Department of Justice support the legislative clarification contained in Sec. 715 of S. 1718.
It is my strongly held view that the Intelligence Community can provide important assistance to law enforcement agencies outside the United States in a far more effective manner than would be the case if law enforcement agencies were to expand their activities into areas traditionally dealt with by the Intelligence Community.
For decades, the Intelligence Community, and the CIA in particular, have developed close working relationships with law enforcement agencies and intelligence services outside the United States. This network of contacts and relationships provides a rich environment from which information required by U.S. law enforcement agencies can be gleaned. There is no reason to replicate it with an extensive law enforcement presence outside the United States. Indeed, such a presence would be counterproductive because it would be confusing, duplicative and undermine longstanding intelligence relationships. It would permit local governments to play one U.S. Government agency off against another and would lead, in my view, to less information reaching the United States, not more.
If I can provide any additional information on these or other matters, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.
An original of this letter is also being sent to Ranking Minority Member Nunn and to the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence .
Mr. NUNN. I am pleased that we have been able to resolve our differences over the provisions in the Department of Defense authorization bill and I look forward to working with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee on the one remaining issue relating to the Intelligence authorization bill. I urge the adoption of these amendments.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I believe that it is the judgment of the managers that all matters relating to this bill that can be concluded on this day have been concluded. The Senate may now proceed to address the remaining matters.
Mr. NUNN. I concur with my friend from Virginia. I think we handled all the amendments we are able to handle now that have been cleared on both sides. We have a lot of amendments remaining, probably in the neighborhood of 50, 60 amendments on this bill. But there are an awful lot of them that are not relevant to this bill, and I hope they will be withdrawn or can be worked out. So I believe that today has been a productive day.
We have stayed on the defense bill by and large. The amendment that we took up that was not relevant to the defense bill was worked out, agreed to, and supported overwhelmingly in this body. So I think it has been a good day. I know Chairman Thurmond has put in a lot of hard hours. The Senator from Virginia has put in a lot of hard hours. We are working together. I think we can make further progress tomorrow. And with good luck, cooperation, good spirit, good will, we can finish this bill tomorrow night, if all that happens.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I just do not know how many times the good Senator from Georgia and I have stood here and wished the Senate well. Let us do it once again. I do so on behalf of the distinguished chairman, Senator Thurmond.
Mr. NUNN. I thank the Senator. I can say, I have been here many times on defense bills when the light in the tunnel was not apparent at all, and I believe I saw a little glimmer earlier this evening.
Mr. WARNER. I am sure we did. I think we should also commend the respective leaders, Mr. Lott and Mr. Daschle, because they indeed became engaged today to assist the matters.
Mr. NUNN. I agree.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators have until the hour of 9:30 a.m., Thursday, in order to file second-degree amendments to the DOD bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.