[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 87 (Tuesday, June 22, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7180-S7183]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 2556. A bill to amend chapter 7 of title 31, United States Code, 
to provide for a technology assessment capability within the General 
Accounting Office, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator 
Lieberman to introduce a bill that would give the Congress a modest 
capability to assess the impacts of science and technology on the 
formulation of public policy.
  All of us in the Senate are all too aware how science and technology 
affects almost every aspect of policy we debate.
  For instance, advances in science and technology are critical to our 
homeland defense oversight duties. There are many legislative proposals 
to deploy biological detection sensors in our cities. Yet, Congress 
does not get timely, in-depth advice on the policy implications on such 
issues as how many would be needed in a large city, or how will the 
data be integrated into a communications network, and would such a 
large volume of data be accurately analyzed and disseminated in a 
timely fashion. In another area of homeland defense, we are not 
confident on what the policy implications are for biometrics applied to 
border control. What are the costs for applying biometrics to the 
millions of visas we issue every year? How might these biometrics, 
which record our physiological features into a single database, invade 
our notions of privacy?
  In the jurisdiction of my committee, Energy and Natural Resources, we 
would like to know how technology could mitigate the threat of 
wildfires, especially on urban regions adjacent to our national 
forests. We know that there are improvements in building materials and 
construction techniques that can reduce the danger of homes

[[Page S7181]]

suddenly catching fire and spreading to adjacent homes. However, the 
effect of such technology improvements on policy matters involving 
building codes, fire and disaster insurance, and coordination of 
communications between federal and local emergency response are 
unknown, yet critical to our law making duties.
  There are other areas where technology affects law making and 
oversight duties. The Congress has supported efforts to integrate 
technology into one of the most crucial elements of democracy--voting. 
Nevertheless, questions remain on the accountability of each vote, and 
the cyber-security of electronic voting systems. These voting 
technology issues directly affect the public confidence in any law we 
may write to bring electronic voting into the mainstream.
  I could go on and on, but these examples lead me to the bill I am 
introducing today.
  Congress abolished the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) in 1995. 
While I disagreed with this decision, the bill I am proposing today 
seeks to establish a smaller, less costly capability in the General 
Accounting Office (GAO).
  The Congressional Research Service (CRS) and GAO have many 
technology-competent personnel, but neither assesses the effects of 
technology on policy-making. The CRS or GAO may study or catalog 
various technologies, they may assess the merits of one technology 
versus another, or even its economic benefits and costs, but they do 
not analyze how the technology can affect policy.
  Some may assert the National Academy of Sciences performs such a 
function. The National Academies independently, through outside 
advisory committees, evaluates the technological merits of programs 
that involve technology, usually funded by the executive branch, and 
not directly by the Congress. The majority of the technology 
evaluations by the National Academies are not technology assessments, 
they do not consider what consequences a technology will have on the 
policies that the Congress considers. Because the Academy maintains a 
strong independence, the timing of their reports are not, and should 
not be, linked to the Congressional calendar.
  I believe it is possible have an existing legislative branch agency 
such as the GAO give to neutral, objective technology assessments to 
the Congress in a timely fashion. I am of the opinion that the GAO can 
undertake this function without creating a large bureaucracy.
  Let me first outline the history of the legislation I am proposing.
  Three years ago, with the help of Senator Bennett, who then chaired 
the Legislative Branch Subcommittee on Appropriations, I was able to 
initiate a pilot program at the GAO to perform technology assessments 
of interest to the Congress. It was Senator Bennett who first suggested 
placing this pilot at the GAO, and when contacted, the GAO stepped 
forward to accept that challenge.
  Since that time, the three-year pilot program at the GAO has 
conducted, or has underway, technology assessments on a wide range of 
topics, from biometrics for border control, cyber-security, cargo 
container security, and technology to mitigate the impact of wildfires 
on urban boundaries. All of these assessments were initiated by 
bipartisan and bicameral letters to the GAO.
  I believe this pilot program to be a success. The first report on 
biometrics for border control has received good evaluations from 
industry and congressional staff. The GAO still testifies on the 
results from the report. The second report on cyber-security has just 
been released, experts across government and the private sector believe 
it is of high quality. A technology assessment on cargo container 
security is underway. A wildfire technology assessment has just been 
initiated.
  In addition, this pilot program has undergone several reviews.
  The first review occurred in October of 2002, when the first 
technology assessment on biometrics ended. A group of distinguished 
scientists, familiar with the technology assessment process, reviewed 
the GAO's organizational capability to conduct future technology 
assessments. While they were impressed with the quality of the GAO's 
effort, they made positive suggestions on how the GAO could improve the 
policy analysis phase of the technology assessment, as this crucial 
feature was new to the GAO. The group of experts reviewed the 
organizational mix of the GAO, and its ability to absorb the technology 
assessment process within their traditional audit and quality control 
structure. These experts found that the GAO's Center for Technology and 
Engineering, which performed the first biometrics assessment, was a 
capable organization, as it was accustomed to undertaking a wide range 
of technology-oriented problems. Finally, the experts commented on how 
the GAO could utilize nongovernmental entities to perform the data 
collection, thus reducing the potential to create a new bureaucracy. 
For the first biometrics report, the experts supported the GAO working 
with the National Research Council to conduct stakeholder workshops to 
gather a wide range of data, while the report writing would be by a 
legislative branch entity--the GAO.

  The second review was a workshop held in July of 2003, at the 
National Academy of Sciences. A wide array of nongovernmental attendees 
evaluated the pilot program at the GAO in the context of other 
organization models for technology assessment, from recreating the old 
OTA to simply using the National Academies. This was the first time 
many nongovernmental persons were exposed to the GAO pilot and many 
were surprised that the GAO was willing to undertake such a program, 
and that its staff quickly adapted to the technology assessment 
process.
  The third review occurred in December of 2003 at the request of the 
Senate Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee. This review was 
conducted by the GAO. The subcommittee asked what would be required to 
conduct this pilot on a sustained basis. The GAO concluded that four 
full time staff would be required at a cost of $420,000, plus $125,000 
for additional expenses to work with outside groups such as the 
National Research Council to collect data. This request has appeared as 
part of GAO's Fiscal Year 2005 budget submission. The GAO also 
requested additional legislative authorities so that the assessments 
could be part of their annual budget process.
  This bill is in response to the December 2003 findings of GAO; it has 
been fully coordinated with the GAO and their findings. This bill also 
reflects the comments from the July 2003 National Academies workshop 
and the first review of the GAO by the expert panel in October of 2002.
  Let me now outline several feature of this bill, and then I will 
comment on what this bill does not have.
  First, the bill proposes to modify the GAO's organic act to give it 
the statutory authority to perform technology assessments as part of 
its advice to the Congress. In doing so, the GAO is directed make such 
technology assessments in a timely and objective fashion. One of the 
major issues with the OTA was that many of its reports were so in-depth 
that they missed the legislative cycle to make a substantive impact on 
a bill under consideration by the Congress. In addition to the longer, 
more in-depth reports, I expect that the GAO will give quick turn-
around phone consultations on singular technology assessment questions 
by staff.
  Second, it directs the Comptroller General to ensure that the GAO has 
the human resources expertise in technology and policy to ensure a high 
quality product.
  Third, it directs the Comptroller General, to the maximum extent 
practicable, to be apprised of other ongoing efforts that may be 
providing information to the Congress.
  Fourth, it directs the Comptroller to peer review all the technology 
assessment reports.
  Fifth, it directs the Comptroller General to establish an advisory 
board in consultation with the National Academy of Sciences. This board 
shall provide external advice on the assessment topics, how they are 
selected, and methods to their improve timeliness and quality. Many 
times advisory boards are an extra overhead burden, but in this case, 
where the GAO is acting as a bridge between the outside technical 
community and the Congress, I feel it is important that some form of 
external peer review of the technology assessment process be present.

[[Page S7182]]

  Sixth, it gives the GAO the necessary authority to enter into 
contracts with outside groups to obtain the information and technical 
feedback that does not reside within the GAO, thus avoiding the 
creation of a bureaucracy within the GAO.
  Finally, it requires the GAO to submit an annual report to the 
Congress on its technology assessment activities from the prior year.
  Let me explain what this authorization does not do.
  First, it does not create a Technology Assessment Board consisting of 
members of Congress to help select topics. There was much concern that 
the OTA became almost beholden to its Technology Assessment Board to 
the dismay of other members of Congress. I have left the topic 
selection process to the GAO within their existing authorities, similar 
to the way they currently schedule and produce reports for members and 
committees. This process has been refined and tested over many years, 
and it is flexible enough to accommodate sudden high priority demands. 
I see no reason why scheduling technology assessments cannot be part of 
this bigger scheduling process, so that its demands are reflected in 
the overall scheduling priorities of the GAO.
  Second, this legislation does not create a large legislative branch 
entity. The OTA had upwards of 200 people and a $30 million budget 
before it was disbanded in 1995. This authorization relies on a core 
internal group at the GAO that relies on outside entities to provide 
information where needed and to be a technical sounding board through 
workshops on a particular technology and its various policy 
implications.
  This legislation strikes an important balance. It establishes some 
internal legislative branch capability to analyze how technology 
affects our policymaking duties. It fills a void left when the OTA was 
abolished by relying on a core team at the GAO using their existing 
authorities for topic selection. Finally, it provides an important 
bridge to the many nongovernmental entities and societies that give 
advice to the executive branch and Congress, while ensuring legislative 
branch objectivity and quality.
  I hope my colleagues join me in supporting this legislation. I hope 
that it receives a hearing in the Governmental Affairs Committee, so 
that all sides of the fact finding process can be brought to bear on 
this bill's strengths and weaknesses, and in so doing, be improved and 
reported to the floor of the Senate for its full consideration and 
passage.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2556

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS.

       (a) Findings and Purposes.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (A) it is important for Congress to be better informed 
     regarding the impact of technology on matters of public 
     concern, including implications for economic, national 
     security, social, scientific, and other national policies and 
     programs;
       (B) on a pilot basis, the General Accounting Office has 
     demonstrated a capacity to perform independent and objective 
     technology assessments for Congress; and
       (C) the development of a cost-effective and efficient 
     capacity for timely and deliberate technology assessments by 
     the General Accounting Office requires the commitment of 
     additional resources and administrative flexibility given the 
     current resource constraints of the General Accounting 
     Office.
       (2) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to--
       (A) direct the establishment of a technology assessment 
     capability in the General Accounting Office;
       (B) ensure the quality of such technology assessments in 
     order to enhance the ability of Congress to address complex 
     technical issues in a more timely and effective manner; and
       (C) condition the development of a technology assessment 
     capability in the General Accounting Office on the provision 
     of adequate additional resources and administrative 
     flexibility.
       (b) Technology Assessments.--Chapter 7 of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after section 720 the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 721. Technology assessments

       ``(a) The General Accounting Office shall establish a 
     technology assessment capability to coordinate and prepare 
     information for Congress relating to the policy implications 
     of applications of technology.
       ``(b) The Comptroller General may establish standards and 
     procedures to govern technology assessments performed under 
     this section as the Comptroller General determines necessary.
       ``(c) Technology assessments performed under this section 
     shall--
       ``(1) provide Congress with timely and objective 
     information to contribute to legislative consideration of 
     technology applications and their policy implications, 
     including thorough reports, in-depth studies, and short-term 
     consultations;
       ``(2) be undertaken by the Comptroller General with special 
     attention to the technical expertise and policy analysis 
     skills needed to perform a prospective assessment of 
     technology applications and policy implications;
       ``(3) be designed, to the extent practicable, to review an 
     application of technology to an issue of public interest, 
     including consideration of benefits, cost, and risks from 
     such technology; and
       ``(4) include peer review by persons and organizations of 
     appropriate expertise.
       ``(d) In performing technology assessments, the Comptroller 
     General shall be properly apprised of Federal and non-Federal 
     entities providing information to Congress to--
       ``(1) enable effective coverage of critical issues; and
       ``(2) avoid duplication of effort.
       ``(e) Technology assessments performed under this section 
     may be initiated as provided under section 717(b).
       ``(f)(1) In consultation with the National Academy of 
     Sciences, the Comptroller General shall establish a 
     technology assessment advisory panel to provide advice on 
     technology assessments performed under this section, 
     methodologies, possible subjects of study, and the means of 
     improving the quality and timeliness of technology assessment 
     services provided to Congress.
       ``(2) The advisory panel shall consist of 5 members, who by 
     reason of professional background and experience, are 
     specially qualified to advise on technology assessments.
       ``(3) Terms on the advisory panel shall--
       ``(A) be for a period of 2 years; and
       ``(B) begin on January 1, on each year in which a new 
     Congress is convened.
       ``(4) Notwithstanding section 1342, for the purposes of 
     establishing a technology assessment advisory panel, the 
     Comptroller General may accept and use voluntary and 
     uncompensated services (except for reimbursement of travel 
     expenses). Individuals providing such voluntary and 
     uncompensated services shall not be considered Federal 
     employees, except for purposes of chapter 81 of title 5 and 
     chapter 171 of title 28.
       ``(g)(1) In order to gain access to technical knowledge, 
     skills, and expertise necessary for a technology assessment 
     performed under this section, the Comptroller General may 
     utilize individuals and enter into contracts or other 
     arrangements to acquire needed expertise with any agency or 
     instrumentality of the United States, with any State, 
     territory, or possession or any political subdivision 
     thereof, or with any person, firm, association, corporation, 
     or educational institution.
       ``(2) Contracts and other arrangements under this 
     subsection may be entered into--
       ``(A) with or without reimbursement; and
       ``(B) without regard to section 3709 of the Revised 
     Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5) or section 3324 of this title.
       ``(h) The Comptroller General shall submit to Congress an 
     annual report on technology assessment activities of the 
     General Accounting Office.
       ``(i)(1) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     General Accounting Office to carry out the activities 
     described in this section, $2,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2004, 2005, and 2006.
       ``(2) Technology assessments under this section may not be 
     performed during fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006, unless a 
     sufficient annual appropriation is provided for such fiscal 
     years.''.
       (c) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 7 of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 720 
     the following:

``721. Technology assessments.''.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill that would 
repeal a provision in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, 
regarding the amount of time that records of approved gun sales can be 
retained.
  This provision, which will be enacted within the next month, was a 
measure that the House and Senate conferees agreed to drop, but 
nonetheless was inserted at the last minute into the Conference Report. 
That provision is opposed by law enforcement and threatens public 
safety because each year, it would allow hundreds of convicted felons, 
fugitives, and possibly even terrorists, to have firearms--even though 
they are prohibited by Federal law from having one.
  Under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, licensed firearms 
dealers generally are prohibited from transferring firearms to an 
individual until a search of the National Instant Criminal Background 
Check System (NICS) determines that the transfer would not violate 
applicable Federal or

[[Page S7183]]

State law. For example, these background checks determine if someone is 
a convicted felon; convicted of a crime of domestic violence or under a 
domestic violence restraining order; or a fugitive. Current regulations 
allow the records of approved firearms sales to be retained in a 
computer database, known as the NICS Audit Log, for up to 90 days, 
after which the records must be destroyed.
  The NICS Audit Log provides many useful and necessary functions. 
First, it allows examiners to determine if, based on new information, 
someone who was allowed to receive a firearm is in fact prohibited by 
federal law from doing so. Second, the NICS Audit Log allows the FBI to 
search for patterns of fraud and abuse by both gun dealers and 
purchasers. Finally, it can help determine if gun buyers have submitted 
false identification in order to thwart the background check system.
  The provision that my legislation today would repeal reduced the time 
these records may be retained from 90 days to 24 hours. This will 
decrease the effectiveness of the NICS Audit Log and have a dramatic, 
negative impact on public safety.
  In July 2001, the Department of Justice proposed an almost-identical 
change to the NICS regulations. In response to that proposal, I asked 
the non-partisan General Accounting Office to conduct a study on its 
possible effects. The key finding of this study was: ``Regarding public 
safety, the FBI would lose certain abilities to initiate firearm-
retrieval actions when new information reveals that individuals who 
were approved to purchase firearms should not have been. Specifically, 
during the first 6 months of the current 90-day retention policy, the 
FBI used retained records to initiate 235 firearm-retrieval actions, of 
which 228, 97 percent, could not have been initiated under the proposed 
next-day destruction policy.''
  Therefore, if this provision is not repealed, each year, more than 
450 people who are prohibited by federal law from having a firearm 
nonetheless will have one.
  This number could even be much higher. In the 6 months examined by 
the GAO, the FBI determined that an additional 179 transactions were 
initially approved and reversed more than one day later, but did not 
result in actual firearm sales. In other words, during this six-month 
period, the background checks yielded a total of 407 mistakes that 
would not have been caught if the NICS record retention period had been 
shortened to 24 hours.
  Given this negative effect on public safety, many law enforcement 
agencies and officials have expressed their opposition. For example, 
the Law Enforcement Steering Committee (LESC), a nonpartisan coalition 
of organizations representing law enforcement management, labor, and 
research, is ``concerned with provisions included in the omnibus bill 
addressing firearms purchasing and the reduction of law enforcement 
oversight.'' The nine organizations in the LESC are the following: the 
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the International 
Brotherhood of Police Officers, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, 
the Major County Sheriff's Association, the National Association of 
Police Organizations, the National Organization of Black Law 
Enforcement Executives, the National Troopers Coalition, the Police 
Executive Research Forum, and the Police Foundation.
  The Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association, a non-
governmental professional association with a membership of nearly 9,000 
current and more than 2,000 retired FBI agents nationwide has written: 
``The more the retention period is reduced, the more difficult it would 
become to use the paperwork to investigate or prosecute crimes related 
to the use of sales of the firearms in question. Any such efforts can 
only complicate the already difficult task of law enforcement and 
jeopardize public safety.''
  Although the FBI Agents Association does not speak for the official 
FBI, it is worth noting that the FBI's NICS Operations Report in March 
2000 recommended extending the retention period from 90 days to one 
year and noted that the Advisory Policy Board concurred with that 
recommendation.
  Finally, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the 
world's oldest and largest association of law enforcement executives, 
with more than 19,000 members in 90 countries, stands behind its 2001 
letter to the FBI, in which the IACP wrote: ``We believe that 
decreasing the amount of time the purchase records are kept will weaken 
the background check system and allow more criminals to illegally 
obtain weapons. . . . The IACP believes that the 90-day retention 
period should not be shortened. Decreasing the retention period of 
these records to one business day will not provide law enforcement with 
sufficient time to perform the necessary audits on the NICS system as 
established by the Brady Act.''
  In addition to the threat to public safety, this provision will have 
monetary costs. According to the GAO report, the FBI has determined 
that when this change in the NICS retention policy is implemented, many 
of the audits currently conducted on a monthly or quarterly basis would 
have to be conducted on a real-time basis--either hourly or daily. The 
FBI has said it would need to add 10 staff members to conduct these 
real-time audits, which would bring the total number of audit staff to 
19.
  Especially in this time of increased attention to homeland security, 
this is not the proper allocation of our limited resources. Unless we 
repeal this provision, we will be funding ten additional FBI staff 
members to implement a policy that would allow hundreds of convicted 
felons and fugitives to keep their firearms. That clearly does not make 
sense.
  The clock is ticking: this provision will go into effect in less than 
a month, before July 21, 2004. We must act now to keep firearms out of 
the hands of hundreds of convicted felons, fugitives, and terrorists 
each year. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this 
important, commonsense legislation to promote public safety and to 
ensure that similar provisions are not enacted in future appropriation 
legislation.
                                 ______