[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 131 (Monday, September 27, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7558-S7559]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2701, the Intelligence
Authorization Act, received from the House and at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2701) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2010 for intelligence and intelligence-related
activities of the United States Government, the Community
Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency
Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to join the distinguished Chair
of the Select Committee on Intelligence in supporting the passage of
H.R. 2701, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010,
with a Senate substitute amendment. This substitute amendment is very
similar to S. 3611, which the Senate passed by unanimous consent nearly
2 months ago in an effort to encourage House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to
allow consideration of an intelligence authorization bill.
It is often said that the third time is the charm. I certainly hope
so. Last summer, we passed our intelligence authorization bill through
the Senate in time for the Intelligence Committee to impact fiscal year
spending. Unfortunately, our bill got held up in the House for
political reasons. So, in August of this year, we tried again. Still,
our bill was held up. Now, here we are, on the eve of a new fiscal
year, and it looks like we finally have a compromise that will allow
Congress to pass an intelligence authorization bill once again.
Why does passing an authorization bill matter at this late date in
the fiscal year? This bill does more than just authorize funding for
intelligence activities--a vital purpose in and of itself. By providing
current congressional guidance and statutory authorities, we can ensure
that the intelligence community has the maximum flexibility and
capability it needs to function effectively, spend taxpayer funds
wisely, and keep our Nation safe.
The intelligence authorization bill before us is a good bill. It will
give the intelligence community much-needed flexibility and authority
and will ensure appropriate intelligence oversight by this committee.
Two months ago, the Senate confirmed a new Director of National
Intelligence. I have often said that in creating the DNI, we gave him
an awful lot of responsibility without all the authority he needed.
Well, our bill attempts to address that problem by giving the DNI
clearer authority and greater flexibility in overseeing the
intelligence community. As Director Clapper takes on his new
assignment, I expect these provisions will play a big part in helping
him lead the intelligence community--and ensuring the rest of the
intelligence community recognizes his role, too.
There are also a number of provisions in this bill that I believe are
essential for promoting good government and smarter spending. Too
often, we have seen programs or acquisitions of major systems balloon
in cost and decrease in performance. That is unacceptable. We are in
difficult economic times and the taxpayers are spending substantial
sums of their hard-earned money to ensure that the intelligence
community has the tools it needs to keep us safe. If we do not demand
accountability for how these tools are operated or created, we are
failing the intelligence community and, ultimately, we are failing the
American people.
So, for the past several years, I have sponsored amendments that
require the intelligence community to perform vulnerability assessments
of major systems and to keep track of excessive cost growth of major
systems. This latter provision is modeled on the Nunn-McCurdy provision
which has guided Defense Department acquisitions for years. I am happy
to say that these provisions are part of this bill. I believe that
these, and other good-government provisions, will encourage earlier
identification and solving of problems relating to the acquisition of
major systems. Too often, such problems are not identified until
exorbitant sums of money have been spent--and, unfortunately, at that
point, bureaucratic inertia takes over and there is often reluctance to
cancel the project.
Similarly, the intelligence community must get a handle on its
personnel levels. In these tough economic times, it is more important
than ever to make sure that the intelligence community is appropriately
resourced so it can effectively perform its national security missions.
This is not, however, an open invitation for more contractors. Far
too many times, contractors are used by the intelligence community to
perform functions better left to government employees. There are some
jobs that demand the use of contractors--for example, certain technical
jobs or short-term functions--but the easy, quick fix has been to just
hire contractors, not long-term support. And so, our bill includes a
provision calling for annual personnel level assessments for the
intelligence community. These assessments will ensure that, before more
people are brought in, there are adequate resources to support them and
enough work to keep them busy.
These are just a few of the provisions in this bill that I believe
are important for the success of our intelligence collection efforts
and equally important for ensuring sound oversight by the Intelligence
Committee.
Now, the substitute amendment does not change any of these
provisions. It does make some minor technical changes, and because the
fiscal year will be over before the bill becomes law, some of the
authorizing provisions have been removed.
The most significant changes in the substitute reflect the compromise
reached by Speaker Pelosi with the Senate and the administration on the
issues of congressional notification and the relationship between the
intelligence community and the Government Accountability Office.
This new version of the congressional notification provision revives
language similar to the first fiscal year 2010 intelligence
authorization bill that passed the Senate by unanimous consent last
year. This language provides that the executive branch will be required
to provide a ``general description'' to all of the members of the
congressional intelligence committees regarding a covert action finding
or congressional notification that has been limited to the ``Gang of
Eight.'' This provision is limited to a description that is consistent
with the reasons for not yet fully informing all the members of the
intelligence committees, so the provision is somewhat weaker than our
original language.
Another change to the congressional notification provision is the
insertion of a requirement that the decision to limit access to ``Gang
of Eight'' findings and notifications be reviewed within the executive
branch every 180 days. If the President determines that such
limitations are no longer necessary, then all the members of the
congressional intelligence committees will be provided access to such
findings and notifications.
These limitations are often revisited periodically by the executive
branch, so this time period should not cause difficulty for the
administration. We have seen in the past the benefits that come from
bringing the full committees into the loop as soon as possible.
Moreover, operational sensitivities can change over time. By requiring
a periodic review, this provision ensures that highly sensitive matters
will remain protected as long as necessary, while also promoting a full
cooperative relationship between the two branches.
[[Page S7559]]
The substitute amendment contains only one real new provision,
section 348, which requires the DNI to issue a written directive
governing GAO access to information in the possession of the
intelligence community. This provision does not change the underlying
law with respect to GAO access to intelligence information, but will
allow Congress to study this issue more closely in the future.
It is well past time that Congress sent an intelligence authorization
bill to the President for his signature. Only by fulfilling our
legislative function will we get back on track with performing
effective and much-needed intelligence oversight.
I commend Senator Feinstein for her leadership in shepherding this
bill through the committee and the Senate. I appreciate her willingness
to work through the countless issues raised throughout this process. I
also thank my colleagues for supporting this bill.
This 2010 intelligence authorization bill has the full support of the
Senate. Senior administration officials have said they will recommend
that the President sign this compromise text into law. I urge the House
of Representatives to pass this bill as soon as possible so that we can
get back on track with our intelligence oversight.
Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent the Feinstein-Bond substitute
amendment which is at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill as
amended be read a third time, that after the reading of the Conrad pay-
go letter into the Record the Senate bill be passed, as amended, that
any statements be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will read the pay-go letter.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Statement of Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation for
H.R. 2701, as amended.
Total Budgetary Effects of H.R. 2701 for the 5-year
Statutory PAYGO Scorecard: $0.
Total Budgetary Effects of H.R. 2701 for the 10-year
Statutory PAYGO Scorecard: $0.
Also submitted for the Record as part of this statement is
a table prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, which
provides additional information on the budgetary effects on
this Act, as follows:
CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR THE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE FOR H.R. 2701, THE INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
2010, AS PROVIDED TO CBO ON SEPTEMBER 24TH, 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2010-2015 2010-2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Increase or Decrease (-) in the Deficit
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact a..................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The legislation would authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States
Government and establish additional intelligence-related offices and programs within the federal government.
The amendment (No. 4665) in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill read a third
time.
The bill (H.R. 2701), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
____________________