[House Report 108-724]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
108th Congress Rept. 108-724
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session Part 2
_______________________________________________________________________
TO PROVIDE FOR REFORM OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, TERRORISM
PREVENTION AND PROSECUTION, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL
COOPERATION AND COORDINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
REPORT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 10
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
October 4, 2004.--Ordered to be printed
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Eighth Congress
DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Chairman
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania IKE SKELTON, Missouri
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York LANE EVANS, Illinois
TERRY EVERETT, Alabama GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts
California SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas VIC SNYDER, Arkansas
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana JIM TURNER, Texas
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina ADAM SMITH, Washington
JIM RYUN, Kansas LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
KEN CALVERT, California ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut BARON P. HILL, Indiana
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
ED SCHROCK, Virginia SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE ISRAEL, New York
JEFF MILLER, Florida RICK LARSEN, Washington
JOE WILSON, South Carolina JIM COOPER, Tennessee
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey JIM MARSHALL, Georgia
TOM COLE, Oklahoma KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida
JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
ROB BISHOP, Utah TIM RYAN, Ohio
MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio CHARLES STENHOLM, Texas
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
Robert S. Rangel, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Purpose and Background........................................... 4
Legislative History.............................................. 5
Hearings......................................................... 5
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 5
TITLE I--REFORM OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.................... 6
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 6
Section 1001--Short Title.................................. 6
Subtitle A--Establishment of National Intelligence Director.. 6
Section 1011--Reorganization and Improvement of Management
of Intelligence Community................................ 6
Section 1012--Revised Definition of National Intelligence.. 6
Section 1013--Joint Procedures for Operational Coordination
between Department of Defense and Central Intelligence
Agency................................................... 7
GSection 1014--Role of National Intelligence Director in
Appointment of Certain Officials Responsible for
Intelligence-related Activities.......................... 7
Section 1015--Initial Appointment of the National
Intelligence Director.................................... 7
Section 1016--Executive Schedule Matters................... 7
Subtitle B--National Counterterrorism Center and Civil
Liberties Protections...................................... 7
Section 1021--National Counterterrorism Center............. 7
Section 1022--Civil Liberties Protection Officer........... 8
Subtitle C--Joint Intelligence Community Council............. 8
Section 1031--Joint Intelligence Community Council......... 8
Subtitle D--Improvement of Human Intelligence (HUMINT)....... 8
Section 1041--Human Intelligence as an Increasingly
Critical Component of the Intelligence Community......... 8
Section 1042--Improvement of Human Intelligence Capacity... 8
Subtitle E--Improvement of Education for the Intelligence
Community.................................................. 8
Section 1051--Modification of Obligated Service
Requirements under National Security Education Program... 8
Section 1052--Improvements to the National Flagship
Language Initiative...................................... 9
Section 1053--Establishment of Scholarship Program for
English Language Studies for Heritage Community Citizens
of the United States within the National Security
Education Program........................................ 9
Section 1054--Sense of Congress with Respect to Language
and Education for the Intelligence Community; Reports.... 9
Section 1055--Advancement of Foreign Languages Critical to
the Intelligence Community............................... 9
Section 1056--Pilot Project for Civilian Linguist Reserve
Corps.................................................... 10
Section 1057--Codification of Establishment of the National
Virtual Translation Center............................... 10
Section 1058--Report on Recruitment and Retention of
Qualified Instructors of the Defense Language Institute.. 10
Subtitle F--Additional Improvements of Intelligence
Activities................................................. 10
Section 1061--Permanent Extension of Central Intelligence
Agency Voluntary Separation Incentive Program............ 10
Section 1062--National Security Agency Emerging
Technologies Panel....................................... 00
Section 1063--Service and National Laboratories and the
Intelligence Community................................... 10
Section 1064--Improvement in Translation and Delivery of
Suspected Terrorist Communications....................... 10
Subtitle G--Conforming and Other Amendments.................. 11
Section 1071--Conforming Amendments Relating to Roles of
National Intelligence Director and Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency.............................. 11
Section 1072--Other Conforming Amendments.................. 11
Section 1073--Elements of Intelligence Community under
National Security Act of 1947............................ 11
Section 1074--Redesignation of National Foreign
Intelligence Program as National Intelligence Program.... 11
Section 1075--Repeal of Superseded Authorities............. 11
Section 1076--Clerical Amendments to National Security Act
of 1947.................................................. 11
Section 1077--Conforming Amendments Relating to Prohibiting
Dual Service of the Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency................................................... 11
Section 1078--Access to Inspector General Protections...... 11
Section 1079--General References........................... 11
Section 1080--Application of Other Laws.................... 12
Subtitle H--Transfer, Termination, Transition and Other
Provisions................................................. 12
Section 1091--Transfer of Community Management Staff....... 12
Section 1092--Transfer of Terrorist Threat Integration
Center................................................... 12
Section 1093--Termination of Positions of Assistant
Directors of Central Intelligence........................ 12
Section 1094--Implementation Plan.......................... 12
Section 1095--Transitional Authorities..................... 13
Section 1096--Effective Dates.............................. 13
Subtitle I--Other Matters.................................... 13
Section 1101--Study of Promotion and Professional Military
Education School Selection Rates for Military
Intelligence Officers.................................... 13
Committee Position............................................... 13
Congressional Budget Office Estimate............................. 13
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 29
Oversight Findings............................................... 29
General Performance Goals and Objectives......................... 29
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 30
Statement of Federal Mandates.................................... 30
Record Votes..................................................... 30
Changes in Existing Laws Made by the Bill, as Reported........... 36
Additional Views................................................. 37
Additional views of Ike Skelton, John Spratt, Solomon P. Ortiz,
Lane Evans, Neil Abercrombie, Marty Meehan, Silvestre Reyes,
Vic Snyder, Jim Turner, Adam Smith, Loretta Sanchez, Mike
McIntyre, Ciro D. Rodriguez, Ellen O. Tauscher, Robert A.
Brady, Baron P. Hill, John B. Larson, Susan A. Davis, James
R. Langevin, Steve Israel, Rick Larsen, Jim Cooper, Kendrick
B. Meek, Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Tim Ryan, Ohio, Charles
Stenholm..................................................... 37
108th Congress Rept. 108-724
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session Part 2
======================================================================
9/11 RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT
_______
October 4, 2004.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hunter, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 10]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 10) to provide for reform of the intelligence
community, terrorism prevention and prosecution, border
security, and international cooperation and coordination, and
for other purposes, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill
as amended do pass.
The amendments (stated in terms of the page and line numbers
of the introduced bill) are as follows:
Page 33, after line 10, insert the following new
subparagraph:
``(H) The Associate National Intelligence Director
for Science and Technology.
Page 33, line 11, strike ``(H)'' and insert ``(I)'', line 12,
strike ``(I)'' and insert ``(J)'', and line 14, strike ``(J)''
and insert ``(K).
Page 37, after line 9, insert the following new subsection:
``(i) Associate National Intelligence Director for Science
and Technology.--(1) There is an Associate National
Intelligence Director for Science and Technology who shall be
appointed by the National Intelligence Director.
``(2) The Associate National Intelligence Director for
Science and Technology shall--
``(A) advise the National Intelligence Director
regarding research and development efforts and
priorities in support of the intelligence mission, to
ensure that the science and technology needs of the
National Intelligence Program will be met;
``(B) develop in consultation with appropriate
agencies and the Associate National Intelligence
Directors for Military Support, Domestic Security, and
Diplomatic Affairs a strategic plan to support United
States leadership in science and technology to
facilitate intelligence missions; and
``(C) perform such other duties and exercise such
powers as the National Intelligence Director may
prescribe.
Page 37, line 10, strike ``(i)'' and insert ``(j)''.
Page 39, line 9, strike ``(j)'' and insert ``(k)''.
Page 41, line 13, strike ``(k)'' and insert ``(l)''.
Page 42, line 1, strike ``(l)'' and insert ``(m)''.
Page 44, after line 20, insert the following new subsection:
``(n) Counterintelligence Officer to the National
Intelligence Director.--(1) There is a Counterintelligence
Officer to the National Intelligence Director who shall be
appointed by the National Intelligence Director.
``(2) The mission of the Counterintelligence Officer to the
National Intelligence Director is to assist the National
Intelligence Director in reducing the threats of disclosure or
loss of classified or sensitive information or penetration of
national intelligence functions that may be potentiated by
increased information sharing, enterprise architectures, or
other activities under this Act.
``(3) The Counterintelligence Officer to the National
Intelligence Director shall--
``(A) assist the Deputy National Intelligence
Director for Community Management and Resources in
developing and implementing counterintelligence
policies for the functions of the Office of the
National Intelligence Director, in consultation with
the Associate National Intelligence Directors;
``(B) ensure that policies under subparagraph (A) and
the implementation of those policies are coordinated
with counterintelligence activities of appropriate
agencies and elements of the National Intelligence
Program, and with the activities of the Intelligence
Community Information Officer;
``(C) review resource requirements to support the
mission of the Counterintelligence Officer under this
subsection and make recommendations to the Deputy
National Intelligence Director for Community Management
and Resources with respect to those requirements; and
``(D) perform such other duties as the National
Intelligence Director shall prescribe.
Page 52, line 6, after the period insert the following new
sentence: ``In the case in which the National Intelligence
Director does not concur in such a recommendation, the Director
and the head of the department or agency concerned may advise
the President directly of the intention to withhold concurrence
or to make a recommendation, as the case may be.''.
At the end of subtitle F of title I (page 93, after line 21),
insert the following new sections (and conform the table of
contents in section 2 accordingly):
SEC. 1063. SERVICE AND NATIONAL LABORATORIES AND THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY.
The National Intelligence Director, in cooperation with the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy, should seek
to ensure that each service laboratory of the Department of
Defense and each national laboratory of the Department of
Energy may, acting through the relevant Secretary and in a
manner consistent with the missions and commitments of the
laboratory--
(1) assist the National Intelligence Director in all
aspects of technical intelligence, including research,
applied sciences, analysis, technology evaluation and
assessment, and any other aspect that the relevant
Secretary considers appropriate; and
(2) make available to the intelligence community, on
a community-wide basis--
(A) the analysis and production services of
the service and national laboratories, in a
manner that maximizes the capacity and services
of such laboratories; and
(B) the facilities and human resources of the
service and national laboratories, in a manner
that improves the technological capabilities of
the intelligence community.
SEC. 1064. IMPROVEMENT IN TRANSLATION AND DELIVERY OF SUSPECTED
TERRORIST COMMUNICATIONS.
(a) Requirement for Prompt Translation and Transmission.--The
National Intelligence Director shall develop and transmit to
the appropriate agencies guidelines to ensure that all
suspected terrorist communications, including transmissions,
are translated and delivered in a manner consistent with
timelines contained in regulations of the Federal Bureau of
Investigations to the extent practicable.
(b) Prevention of Deletion of Terrorist Communications.--The
National Intelligence Director shall take such steps as are
necessary to ensure that terrorist communications are not
deleted or discarded before those communications are
translated.
At the end of title I (page 116, after line 19), insert the
following (and conform the table of contents in section 2
accordingly):
Subtitle I--Other Matters
SEC. 1101. STUDY OF PROMOTION AND PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION
SCHOOL SELECTION RATES FOR MILITARY INTELLIGENCE
OFFICERS.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a study of
the promotion selection rates, and the selection rates for
attendance at professional military education schools, of
intelligence officers of the Armed Forces, particularly in
comparison to the rates for other officers of the same Armed
Force who are in the same grade and competitive category.
(b) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a
report providing the Secretary's findings resulting from the
study under subsection (a) and the Secretary's recommendations
(if any) for such changes in law as the Secretary considers
needed to ensure that intelligence officers, as a group, are
selected for promotion, and for attendance at professional
military education schools, at rates not less than the rates
for all line (or the equivalent) officers of the same Armed
Force (both in the zone and below the zone) in the same grade.
The report shall be submitted not later than April 1, 2005.
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
The purpose of H.R. 10 is to amend the National Security
Act of 1947, which contains the authorities and
responsibilities of the Secretary of Defense and the Director
of Central Intelligence (DCI) and to address the central
findings of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon
the United States, known as the 9/11 Commission.
On July 22, 2004, the commission released its final report
concerning the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The
report highlights policies and procedures across the federal
government that need improvement and recommends a range of
general and specific solutions to those problems. These
recommendations affect several executive departments, including
the Department of Defense and many recommendations would
require action by Congress to be implemented.
The President signed several executive orders on August 27,
2004, implementing the commission's recommendations, in part.
In addition, the administration recommended that the Congress
adopt several changes to the National Security Act of 1947, and
submitted suggested legislative language on September 16, 2004.
The committee's consideration of H.R. 10 was limited to
title I, the National Security Intelligence Improvement Act of
2004, which addresses the core issues of the commission's
report concerning the organization of the intelligence
community.
The Department operates the majority of the nation's
national intelligence apparatus through the National Security
Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. These agencies support the
intelligence requirements of both the DCI and the Secretary
under a well established partnership arrangement. That
partnership works effectively today and was effective before
September 11, 2001, according to testimony before the committee
by the vice chairman of the commission.
The reason for this complicated arrangement is that our
nation's intelligence assets are a unique and valuable
instrument of national security policy that must serve multiple
purposes. We do not have two separate intelligence systems.
Today, the same national capability and the same satellites
that inform the President and senior policymakers are also used
by front line military forces to carry out their mission. The
use of expensive, complex systems for multiple purposes is both
efficient and synergistic to effective intelligence analysis.
This integration of national and tactical intelligence and
the sharing of this information to users up and down the
command chain is exactly what the committee has been
encouraging for well over a decade, to leverage this strategic
capability for maximum effect. Therefore, the suggestion that
national and tactical intelligence operations and assets can be
surgically split into separate organizations and budgets fails
to account for the negative impact such a step would have on
how we operate and perform on today's modern battlefield.
Consequently, the budget authorities that the newly created
National Intelligence Director (NID) would have under H.R. 10
were carefully crafted to preserve the ability of the Secretary
to rely on these agencies to supply critical military
intelligence to combatant commanders, yet enable the NID to
effectively perform his national intelligence mission.
The system works today because of the delicately balanced
partnership that exists between the DCI and the Secretary.
Thus, as this bill moves toward a new organizational concept
that creates a National Intelligence Director to manage the
community, the committee must ensure that this critical
partnership is maintained to ensure that in the rush to reform,
those parts of the intelligence system that work well and are
critical to our men and women in uniform are not broken.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
As noted above, H.R. 10 was introduced on September 24,
2004, and referred to the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, and in addition to the Committees on Armed
Services, Education and the Workforce, Energy and Commerce,
Financial Services, Government Reform, International Relations,
the Judiciary, Rules, Science, Transportation and
Infrastructure, Ways and Means, and Select Homeland Security.
On September 29, 2004, the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence reported favorably the bill, as amended, by a
record vote of 17 ayes to 2 noes, and the Committee on
Financial Services on September 29, 2004, reported favorably
the bill, as amended, by voice vote. The bill, as amended, was
reported favorably by the Committee on Government Reform on
September 29, 2004, by voice vote, and by the Committee on the
Judiciary on September 29, 2004, by a record vote of 19 ayes to
12 noes.
On September 29, 2004, the Committee on Armed Services held
a mark-up session to consider H.R. 10. The committee reported
favorably the bill, as amended, by a record vote of 59 ayes to
0 noes, a quorum being present.
HEARINGS
Committee consideration of the matter contained in the
National Security Intelligence Improvement Act of 2004, title I
of this Act, results from four full committee hearings
conducted on August 10 and 11, 2004.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
The following is a section-by-section analysis of those
sections of H.R. 10 as amended by the Armed Services Committee.
TITLE I--REFORM OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1001--Short Title
This section would establish the short title of title I of
this Act as the ``National Security Intelligence Improvement
Act of 2004.''
Subtitle A--Establishment of National Intelligence Director
Section 1011--Reorganization and Improvement of Management of
Intelligence Community
This section would amend sections 102 through 104 of title
50, United States Code, the ``National Security Act of 1947.''
It would establish a National Intelligence Director (NID) to
head the United States intelligence community. The NID would
act as the principal advisor to the President, the National
Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council for foreign
and domestic intelligence matters relating to national
security. Contrary to prior law, the NID would be prohibited
from concurrent service as the Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency. The NID would manage, oversee and direct
the execution of the National Intelligence Program (NIP). The
NID would provide national intelligence to the President, heads
of departments and agenciesof the executive branch, the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and senior military commanders,
and the Senate and House of Representatives, as appropriate.
This section would also enhance the NID's authority to
execute the annual intelligence budget. The NID would work
through the heads of the departments in the intelligence
community. This section would also provide the NID with
authority to transfer funds out of any department or agency
within the NIP in a single fiscal year if the amount is less
than $100.0 million and that is less than five percent of the
amounts available to a department or agency under the NIP. A
transfer would not be allowed if the result would be to
terminate a program.
Section 1012--Revised Definition of National Intelligence
This section would clarify the terms ``national
intelligence'' and ``intelligence related to national
security'' as referring to all intelligence, regardless of the
source from which derived and including information gathered
within or outside the United States that pertains to more than
one United States Government agency and that involves threats
to the United States, its people, property, or interests, the
development, proliferation, or use of weapons of mass
destruction or any other matter bearing on United States
national or homeland security.
Section 1013--Joint Procedures for Operational Coordination Between
Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency
This section would require development of joint procedures
to improve the coordination and deconfliction of operations
that involve both the Armed Forces and the Central Intelligence
Agency. This section would require a report to the
congressional defense committees and the congressional
intelligence committees describing the procedures established
not less than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
Section 1014--Role of National Intelligence Director in Appointment of
Certain Officials Responsible for Intelligence-related Activities
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
obtain concurrence of the National Intelligence Director (NID)
before appointing, or recommending to the President, an
individual to fill the positions of Director of the National
Security Agency, the Director of the National Reconnaissance
Office or the Director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency. If the NID does not concur with the recommendation, the
Secretary may not fill the vacancy or make the recommendation
to the President. If the NID does not concur with such a
recommendation, the NID and the Secretary may advise the
President directly of the intention to withhold concurrence or
to make a recommendation, as the case may be.
Section 1015--Initial Appointment of the National Intelligence Director
This section would give the President discretion to appoint
the current Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) as the
National Intelligence Director (NID) upon the date of the
enactment of the Act. Any reference to the DCI, in the capacity
as the head of the intelligence community, would be deemed to
be a reference to the NID. Also, any reference to the DCI, in
the capacity as the head of the Central Intelligence Agency,
would be deemed to be a reference to the DCI.
Section 1016--Executive Schedule Matters
This section would amend sections 5312, 5313 and 5315 of
title 5, United States Code, to reflect the creation of the
National Intelligence Director, Deputy National Intelligence
Director and Director of the National Counterterrorism Center.
Subtitle B--National Counterterrorism Center and Civil Liberties
Protections
Section 1021--National Counterterrorism Center
This section would establish the National Counterterrorism
Center (NCTC) within the Office of the National Intelligence
Director. This section would define the mission of the NCTC as
the primary organization in the United States Government for
analyzing and integrating all intelligence possessed or
acquired by the United States pertaining to terrorism, except
intelligence pertaining exclusively to domestic
counterterrorism, for conducting strategic operational
planning, for supporting operational responsibilities assigned
to lead agencies for counterterrorism by ensuring access to
intelligence, and for ensuring appropriate access to all-source
intelligence support needed to execute counterterrorism plans.
This section would also explicitly define the duties and
responsibilities of the Director of the NCTC.
Section 1022--Civil Liberties Protection Officer
This section would establish a Civil Liberties Protection
Officer within the Office of the National Intelligence Director
(NID). This officer would ensure that the protection of civil
liberties and privacy be appropriately incorporated by the
Office of the NID, oversee compliance by the Office of the NID,
review and assess complaints, ensure that the use of
technologies does not erode privacy protections, ensure
personal information is handled in compliance with section 552a
of title 5, United States Code, and conduct privacy impact
assessments.
Subtitle C--Joint Intelligence Community Council
Section 1031--Joint Intelligence Community Council
This section would establish a Joint Intelligence Community
Council (JICC) to advise the National Intelligence Director
(NID), as appropriate. The JICC would consist of the NID as
chair, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury,
the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary
of Energy, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other
officials designated by the President.
Subtitle D--Improvement of Human Intelligence (HUMINT)
Section 1041--Human Intelligence as an Increasingly Critical Component
of the Intelligence Community
This section would express the sense of Congress regarding
the increasing importance of human intelligence as a critical
component of the intelligence community.
Section 1042--Improvement of Human Intelligence Capacity
This section would require the National Intelligence
Director to submit to Congress, not later than six months after
the date of enactment of this Act, a report on existing human
intelligence (HUMINT) capacity across the intelligence
community.
Subtitle E--Improvement of Education for the Intelligence Community
Section 1051--Modification of Obligated Service Requirements Under
National Security Education Program
This section would modify obligations of recipients of a
scholarship or fellowship under the National Security Education
program by requiring that the recipients commence work in a
specified national security position within two years of
completion of study. This section would also allow recipients
to accept positions in the Department of State or in the
Department of Homeland Security if positions are not available
within the Department of Defense or in any element of the
intelligence community.
Section 1052--Improvements to the National Flagship Language Initiative
This section would authorize $12.0 million for fiscal year
2005, and each fiscal year thereafter for the National Flagship
Language Initiative. This section would also require a
recipient to reimburse the United States if employment is
terminated due to misconduct by the employee or by the employee
voluntarily. This section would also increase the number of
educational institutions that could receive grants under this
program.
Section 1053--Establishment of Scholarship Program for English Language
Studies for Heritage Community Citizens of the United States Within the
National Security Education Program
This section would establish a scholarship program for
United States citizens who are native speakers of a foreign
language identified as critical to the national security
interests of the United States and who are not proficient at a
professional level in the English language. This section would
also authorize $4.0 million for fiscal year 2005, and each
fiscal year thereafter to provide scholarships under this
program.
Section 1054--Sense of Congress With Respect to Language and Education
for the Intelligence Community; Reports
This section would express the sense of Congress that there
should be a senior official within the Office of the National
Intelligence Director (NID) responsible for assisting the NID
in establishing polices and procedures for foreign language
education and training of the intelligence community. The
official would oversee and coordinate requirements for foreign
language education, establish policy, standards and priorities
relating to such requirements, identify languages that are
critical to the capabilities of the intelligence community, and
monitor the allocation of resources for foreign language
education. This section would also require reports that
identify the skills and processes involved in learning a
foreign language; and characteristics and teaching techniques
that are most effective in teaching foreign languages.
Section 1055--Advancement of Foreign Languages Critical to the
Intelligence Community
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense and
National Intelligence Director (NID) to jointly establish a
program to advance foreign language skills in languages that
are critical to the capability of the intelligence community to
carry out national security activities of the United States.
This section would also allow education partnership agreements
with United States education institutions in order to encourage
the study of foreign languages critical to the capability of
the intelligence community. Further, this section would allow
the NID to assign military and civilian analysts as students in
foreign language training programs.
Section 1056--Pilot Project for Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps
This section would require the National Intelligence
Director to conduct a three-year pilot project to establish a
Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps, comprised of United States
citizens with advanced levels of proficiency in foreign
languages, in the federal government. This section would
authorize such sums are necessary to carry out the pilot
project in fiscal years 2005, 2006 and 2007.
Section 1057--Codification of Establishment of the National Virtual
Translation Center
This section would establish a National Virtual Translation
Center under the direction of the National Intelligence
Director. The purpose of this center would be to provide for
timely and accurate translations of foreign intelligence for
all other elements of the intelligence community.
Section 1058--Report on Recruitment and Retention of Qualified
Instructors of the Defense Language Institute
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a study on methods to improve the recruitment and
retention of qualified foreign language instructors at the
Defense Language Institute's Foreign Language Center.
Subtitle F--Additional Improvements of Intelligence Activities
Section 1061--Permanent Extension of Central Intelligence Agency
Voluntary Separation Incentive Program
This section would make permanent the Central Intelligence
Agency Voluntary Separation Pay incentive program.
Section 1062--National Security Agency Emerging Technologies Panel
This section would establish the National Security Agency
Emerging Technologies Panel as a standing panel of the National
Security Agency (NSA). The panel would study, assess and advise
the Director of the NSA on the research, development and
application of existing and emerging science and technology
advances.
Section 1063--Service and National Laboratories and the Intelligence
Community
This section would allow each national laboratory of the
Department of Energy to assist the National Intelligence
Director through technical support to the intelligence
community.
Section 1064--Improvement in Translation and Delivery of Suspected
Terrorist Communications
This section would require the National Intelligence
Director (NID) to develop and transmit to appropriate agencies
guidelines to ensure that all suspected terrorist
communications are translated, to the extent practicable, in a
manner consistent with timelines contained in regulations of
the Federal Bureau of Investigations. This section would also
require the NID to take necessary steps to ensure that
terrorist communications are not deleted or discarded before
those communications are translated.
Subtitle G--Conforming and Other Amendments
Section 1071--Conforming Amendments Relating to Roles of National
Intelligence Director and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
This section would strike ``Director of Central
Intelligence'' in specified sections of the United States Code
and insert ``National Intelligence Director.''
Section 1072--Other Conforming Amendments
This section would make other conforming amendments.
Section 1073--Elements of Intelligence Community Under National
Security Act of 1947
This section would amend section 401 of title 50, United
States Code, to include the National Intelligence Director in
the definition of ``intelligence community.''
Section 1074--Redesignation of National Foreign Intelligence Program as
National Intelligence Program
This section would redesignate the ``National Foreign
Intelligence Program'' as the ``National Intelligence
Program.''
Section 1075--Repeal of Superseded Authorities
This section would repeal superseded authorities.
Section 1076--Clerical Amendments to National Security Act of 1947
This section would make technical and clerical amendments.
Section 1077--Conforming Amendments Relating to Prohibiting Dual
Service of the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
This section would make a conforming amendment to section
403a of title 50, United States Code.
Section 1078--Access to Inspector General Protections
This section would amend section 403q(a)(1) of title 50,
United States Code, to include ``programs and operations of the
Office of the National Intelligence Director.''
Section 1079--General References
This section would clarify general references to the
Director of Central Intelligence and the National Intelligence
Director. Any reference to the Director of Central Intelligence
in his or her capacity as the head of the intelligence
community would be deemed to be a reference to the National
Intelligence Director. Any reference to the Director of Central
Intelligence in his or her capacity as the head of the Central
Intelligence Agency would be deemed to be a reference to the
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Any reference to
the Community Management staff would be deemed a reference to
the staff of the Office of the National Intelligence Director.
Section 1080--Application of Other Laws
This section would amend sections 7323(b)(2)B)(i) and
7342(f)(4) of title 5, United States Code relating to political
service of personnel and information about foreign gifts. This
section would also amend section 105(a)(1) of title 5, United
States Code App., by inserting ``the Office of the National
Intelligence Director''.
Subtitle H--Transfer, Termination, Transition and Other Provisions
Section 1091--Transfer of Community Management Staff
This section would transfer the Community Management Staff
to the Office of the National Intelligence Director.
Section 1092--Transfer of Terrorist Threat Integration Center
This section would transfer all functions and activities of
the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC) to the National
Counterterrorism Center. The Director of the TTIC would
administer the National Counterterrorism Center after the date
of enactment of this Act.
Section 1093--Termination of Positions of Assistant Directors of
Central Intelligence
This section would abolish, within the Central Intelligence
Agency, the positions of the Assistant Director of Central
Intelligence for Collection, the Assistant Director of Central
Intelligence for Analysis and Production, and the Assistant
Director of Central Intelligence for Administration.
Section 1094--Implementation Plan
This section would direct the President to transmit to
Congress a plan for the implementation of this title and the
amendments made by this title, including:
(1) The transfer of personnel, assets and obligations
to the National Intelligence Director (NID);
(2) Any consolidation, reorganization, or
streamlining of activities transferred to the NID;
(3) The establishment of offices within the Office of
the NID to implement the duties of the NID;
(4) Specification of any proposed disposition of
property, facilities, contracts, records and others
assets transferred to the NID; and
(5) Recommendations for additional legislative or
administrative action.
This section would also express the sense of Congress that
the Office of the NID should be located at a location other
than the George Bush Center for Intelligence in Langley,
Virginia.
Section 1095--Transitional Authorities
This section would allow the head of any executive agency,
upon the request of the National Intelligence Director (NID),
to provide services or detail personnel to the NID, on a
reimbursable basis.
Section 1096--Effective Dates
This section would make the title and amendments to this
Act effective on the date of the enactment. This section would
also require the National Intelligence Director (NID) to
appoint individuals to positions within the Office of the NID.
This section would not apply with respect to the Deputy
National Intelligence Director. This section also would require
the President to transmit to Congress the implementation plan
required, not later than 180 days after enactment.
Subtitle I--Other Matters
Section 1101--Study of Promotion and Professional Military Education
School Selection Rates for Military Intelligence Officers
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a study of the promotion selection rates, and the
selection rates for attendance at professional military
education schools, of intelligence officers of the Armed
Forces. This section would require the Secretary to submit to
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee
on Armed Services a report of the Secretary's findings not
later than April 1, 2005.
COMMITTEE POSITION
On September 29, 2004, the Committee on Armed Services, a
quorum being present, reported H.R. 10, as amended, favorably
by a vote of 59 ayes to 0 noes.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE
Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain
annual outlays resulting from the bill during fiscal year 2005
and the following four years. The results of such efforts are
reflected in the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which is included in this
report pursuant to clause 3(c)(3).
October 4, 2004.
Hon. Duncan Hunter
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 10, the 9/11
Recommendations Implementation Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Raymond J.
Hall.
Sincerely,
Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
Director.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
Summary: H.R. 10 would affect the intelligence community,
terrorism prevention and prosecution, and border security, as
well as international cooperation and coordination. Title I
would establish an Office of the National Intelligence Director
(NID) to manage and oversee intelligence activities of the U.S.
government, including foreign intelligence and
counterintelligence activities. The legislation would transfer
some existing intelligence organizations to that office and
would establish a National Counterterrorism Center and one or
more national intelligence centers within the Office of the
NID. Title II would authorize funding for law enforcement,
counterterrorism activities, and programs related to aviation
safety. Title III would increase the number of agents
performing border security and immigration functions, improve
the security of identity documents such as driver's licenses,
and increase the number of consular officers within the
Department of State. Title IV would authorize funds for a
number of international cooperation programs. Finally, title V
would reauthorize and restructure several homeland security
programs.
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 10 would cost about
$550 million in 2005 and $14.4 billion over the 2005-2009
period, assuming appropriation of the specified and estimated
amounts. That total does not include possible additional costs
associated with implementing provisions dealing with the
creation of an interoperable data system for exchanging law
enforcement and intelligence data or the establishment of a
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reserve service because
CBO does not have sufficient information to estimate those
costs at this time. With regard to the FBI reserve service, CBO
cannot predict when a national emergency would occur, but
expects that costs for the proposed reserve service would
likely be insignificant in most years.
The bill also contains provisions that would decrease
direct spending. In particular, it would establish a fund
within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to enhance
efforts to detect explosives at security checkpoints in
airports; authorize the collection and spending of $30 million
a year of fees from airline passengers in 2005 and 2006 for
that purpose; allow the Director of the FBI to waive the
mandatory retirement requirement for agents until age 65; and
extend indefinitely the authority of the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) to offer incentive payments to employees who
voluntarily retire or resign. CBO estimates that enacting those
provisions would decrease direct spending by about $25 million
in 2005, $4 million over the 2005-2009 period, and $2 million
over the 2005-2014 period. The estimate of direct spending does
not include the effects of extending the authority of the CIA
to offer incentive payments to employees who voluntarily retire
or resign because the data needed to prepare such an estimate
are classified. Enacting H.R. 10 would not affect receipts.
H.R. 10 contains several intergovernmental mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). CBO
estimates that those mandates, in aggregate, would impose costs
on state, local, and tribal governments totaling more than $600
million over fiscal years 2005 through 2009. CBO estimates that
the costs in at least one of those years would exceed the
threshold established in UMRA ($60 million in 2004, adjusted
annually for inflation). The bill would authorize
appropriations for grants to states to cover such costs. H.R.
10 contains no private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 10 is summarized in Table 1. The costs
of this legislation fall within budget functions 050 (national
defense), 400 (transportation), 450 (community and regional
development), 550 (health), 750 (administration of justice),
and 800 (general government).
Basis of estimate: Most of H.R. 10's effects on the federal
budget would be subject to appropriation of amounts necessary
to implement the bill. For this estimate, CBO assumes that the
bill will be enacted by the end of the calendar year, that all
such amounts will be appropriated near the start of each fiscal
year, and that outlays will follow historical patterns for
similar activities.
TABLE 1.--BUDGETARY IMPACT OF H.R. 10, THE 9/11 RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION \1\
Estimated Authorization Level...................................... 1,134 5,025 1,341 4,697 5,261
Estimated Outlays.................................................. 533 4,289 2,093 3,265 4,263
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING \2\
Estimated Budget Authority......................................... * * * * *
Estimated Outlays.................................................. -25 -12 19 10 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These amounts do not include the costs of section 2192 because CBO cannot estimate such costs at this time.
The amounts also exclude the costs associated with establishing a reserve service within the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. Any such costs would be insignificant in most years, and CBO has no basis for predicting when a
national emergency would occur.
\2\ These amounts do not include the costs of section 1061 because the data needed to prepare an estimate are
classified.
Note.--* = between zero and -$500,000.
Spending Subject to Appropriation. The bill contains
provisions that would affect the intelligence community,
terrorism prevention and prosecution, and border security, as
well as international cooperation and coordination. Table 2
presents CBO's estimates of the cost of those provisions. In
total, we estimate that implementing H.R. 10 would cost $14.4
billion over the 2005-2009 period, assuming appropriation of
the specified and estimated amounts. That total does not
include the possible additional costs associated with
implementing provisions dealingwith the creation of an
interoperable data system for exchanging law enforcement and
intelligence data or the establishment of an FBI reserve service
because CBO does not have sufficient information to estimate those
costs at this time. With regard to the FBI reserve service, CBO cannot
predict when a national emergency would occur, but expects that costs
for the proposed reserve service would likely be insignificant in most
years.
TABLE 2.--ESTIMATED CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION UNDER H.R. 10 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reform the Intelligence Community:
Estimated Authorization Level.................................. 40 235 75 90 70
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 30 60 110 145 140
Combating Financial Crimes:
Authorization Level 51......................................... 51 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 36 15 0 0 0
Aviation Security:
Estimated Authorization Level.................................. 528 4,343 330 0 0
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 238 3,666 957 340 0
Improve Intelligence Capabilities of the FBI:
Estimated Authorization Level.................................. 4 5 6 7 8
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 3 5 6 8 8
Increase the Number of Border Patrol and Immigration Agents:
Estimated Authorization Level.................................. 0 174 526 981 1,451
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 0 165 509 958 1,427
Grants to Improve Security of Driver's Licenses:
Estimated Authorization Level.................................. 80 30 30 10 10
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 80 30 30 10 10
New Standards for Issuance of Birth and Death Certificates:
Estimated Authorization Level.................................. 330 20 30 40 50
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 70 150 160 35 45
Expand Immigration Services at Foreign Airports:
Authorization Level............................................ 49 88 137 0 0
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 39 80 127 28 0
Increase the Number of Consular Officers:
Estimated Authorization Level.................................. 0 33 62 93 125
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 0 27 54 84 115
Reform International Cooperation and Coordination:
Estimated Authorization Level.................................. 17 17 17 7 7
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 7 15 17 15 9
First-Responder Grants:
Estimated Authorization Level.................................. 0 0 0 3,314 3,381
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 0 0 0 1,491 2,350
Counternarcotics Office:
Estimated Authorization Level.................................. 6 6 6 6 6
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 4 6 6 6 6
Security Clearance Modernization:
Estimated Authorization Level.................................. 23 68 116 143 147
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 21 64 111 140 147
Public Safety Communications Interoperability:
Estimated Authorization Level.................................. 6 6 6 6 6
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 5 6 6 6 6
Total Changes: \1\
Estimated Authorization Level.................................. 1,134 5,025 1,341 4,697 5,261
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 533 4,289 2,093 3,265 4,263
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These amounts do not include the costs of section 2192 because CBO cannot estimate such costs at this time.
The amounts also exclude the costs associated with establishing a reserve service within the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. Any such costs would be insignificant in most years, and CBO has no basis for predicting when a
national emergency would occur.
Note.--FBI = Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Reform the Intelligence Community. Title I would reform the
intelligence community by establishing the position of National
Intelligence Director and an Office of the National
Intelligence Director to manage and oversee intelligence
activities of the U.S. government, including foreign
intelligence and counterintelligence activities. The
legislation also would transfer some existing organizations,
specifically the Office of the Deputy Director of Central
Intelligence for Community Management and the Terrorist Threat
Integration Center (TTIC), to that office and would establish a
National Counterterrorism Center and one or more national
intelligence centers within the Office of the NID. The bill
would expand language training within the intelligence
community and authorize additional scholarships for new
recruits. Finally, the legislation would establish a civilian
linguist reserve corps.
CBO estimates that implementing title I and other
provisions relating to the intelligence community would cost
about $490 million over the 2005-2009 period (see Table 3).
These costs are in addition to those that would be incurred
under current law by the Office of the Deputy Director of
Central Intelligence for Community Management and the Terrorist
Threat Integration Center. The estimated costs include expenses
to establish, house, and administer the new Office of the
National Intelligence Director and implement other specified
programs, such as improving training programs and establishing
a scholarship program.
TABLE 3.--ESTIMATED CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION FOR REFORMING THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY UNDER
H.R. 10 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Create the Office of the National Intelligence Director:
Estimated Authorization Level.................................. 15 210 50 80 60
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 10 35 80 135 130
Other Program Authorizations:
Estimated Authorization Level.................................. 25 25 25 10 10
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 20 25 25 10 10
Total Changes:
Estimated Authorization Level.................................. 40 235 75 90 70
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 30 60 110 145 140
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Create the Office of the National Intelligence Director.
CBO estimates that establishing, housing, and administering the
Office of the NID would cost about $390 million over the 2005-
2009 period. The bill would transfer the Office of the Deputy
Director of Central Intelligence for Community Management
(identified as the Intelligence Community Management Account
within the budget) and the TTIC to the Office of the NID.
The Intelligence Community Management Account (ICMA) was
established by Congressional direction to provide resources
that directly support the Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency and the intelligence community as a whole in
coordinating cross-program activities. Because part of its
budget is classified, CBO does not know the overall size of
this organization. Unclassified budgets for the ICMA indicate
that the office has a staff of about 300 people who develop the
National Foreign Intelligence Program budget, oversee research
and development activities, and develop intelligence plans and
requirements, but the Congress also authorizes and appropriates
funds for additional staff in the classified portion of the
intelligence budget.
Similarly, CBO has no budget information on the TTIC, but
public information released by the White House indicates that
the center opened in May 2003 with a staff of about 60 people
working alongside the counterterrorism offices of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and the CIA. That same information
indicates that the Administration expects to eventually staff
the TTIC with between 200 and 300 people to serve as the hub
for all intelligence regarding terrorist threats.
CBO expects that the NID would require staff to perform its
authorized functions in addition to the staff transferred from
the ICMA and the planned staff for the TTIC. Because much of
the detailed information regarding the organization, staffing
levels, and budgets of the intelligence community are
classified at a level above clearances held by CBO employees,
CBO has used information about staff requirements from similar
organizations within the Department of Defense (DoD), the
Department of Homeland Security, and other federal agencies to
attempt to estimate the number of additional staff that might
be needed by the NID. Based on that analysis, CBO estimates
that the NID might need to hire around 300 new staff, including
appointees such as principal and deputy directors, key managers
such as a general counsel, a civil liberties protection
officer, personnel to perform administrative functions such as
policy development and budget and finance activities, and
personnel for the National Counterterrorism Center and one or
more national intelligence centers. CBO expects that many of
these new hires would be staff transferred from other
organizations within the intelligence community but that those
other organizations would eventually fill many of the vacated
positions within their organizations over about a four year
period following enactment of this legislation.
Based on information about the staffing levels and costs
for the administrative offices of the Department of Defense,
the Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies, CBO
estimates that the personnel and related expenses to provide
centralized leadership, coordination, and support and
analytical services for the Office of the National Intelligence
Director would eventually cost around $45 million annually, but
that costs would be much lower in the first few years as
positions are filled. CBO estimates that such costs would be
minimal in the first year and total about $130 million over the
2005-2009 period.
Section 1094 would express the sense of the Congress that
the permanent location of the NID headquarters be at a location
other than the George Bush Center for Intelligence in Langley,
Virginia. For this estimate, CBO assumes that the Director's
office and associated staff would occupy the space currently
used by the Intelligence Community Management staff until
fiscal year 2007. Starting in 2007, CBO assumes that the office
would move to new office space in a building owned by the
General Services Administration (GSA) until a new building can
be built for its use. CBO estimates that initially GSA would
need to renovate and furnish office space for the NID staff.
(After 2009, CBO expects that these positions would be
relocated to the new permanent NID headquarters.) CBO estimates
that the GSA rental payments would reach about $20 million a
year and total about $40 million over the 2007-2009 period.
Additional costs to purchase computers, network equipment, and
supplies in the first few years following the relocation into
the GSA-owned building also would be significant. CBO estimates
that those costs would total $30 million over the 2007-2009
period.
CBO assumes that GSA would construct a new building on land
already owned by the federal government to serve as the
headquarters for the Office of the NID. Based on information
provided by GSA about recent federal office building projects,
CBO estimates that planning and design of the new headquarters
would cost $15 million over the 2005-2006 period, and that
constructing the facility to house NID employees would cost
about $175 million over the 2006-2009 period. (An additional
$20 million in spending would occur in 2010 to complete
construction of the new building.) CBO assumes that the
headquarters would be located on property already owned by the
federal government in the Washington, D.C. area. If GSA had to
buy land for the building site, costs would be higher. CBO
assumes that construction of the new facility would not start
until sometime in late 2006 and would be completed after 2009.
Therefore, CBO estimates that no costs associated with
furnishing, equipping, and maintaining the new space would be
incurred during the 2005-2009 period nor would there be costs
to relocate NID staff from the interim offices to the new
headquarters over that period.
Other Program Authorizations. Title I also would authorize
the President and the NID to initiate or enhance several
programs within the intelligence community. Based on
information from the Administration and on the costs of other
similar efforts, CBO estimates that those efforts would cost
about $20 million in 2005 and total around $90 million over the
2005-2009 period, subject to appropriation of the specified and
estimated amounts.
Section 1052 would authorize the appropriation of
an additional $2 million a year to carry out the grant program
for the National Flagship Language Initiative, which was
established to improve higher education in foreign languages
that the Secretary of Defense has identified as critical to the
interests of the national security of the United States. CBO
estimates that implementing this section would cost $10 million
over the 2005-2009 period, assuming appropriation of the
specified amounts.
Section 1053 would establish a new scholarship
program within the National Security Education Trust Fund. The
scholarships would be available to students who are U.S.
citizens and are native speakers of a foreign language that is
identified as critical to the national security interests of
the United States. The scholarships would enable those students
to pursue English language studies at an institution of higher
education in the United States to attain proficiency in those
skills. The bill would authorize the appropriation of $4
million a year starting in 2005 for these scholarships. CBO
estimates that the costs for the scholarship program would
total about $20 million over the 2005-2009 period, assuming
appropriation of the specified amounts.
Section 1055 would establish a program operated
jointly by the NID and the Department of Defense to advance
foreign language skills in languages that are critical to the
capability of the intelligence community to carry out national
security activities. Under this provision, personnel from the
intelligence community could be reimbursed for the total cost
of tuition and training in foreign language studies undertaken
at educational institutions that have entered into educational
partnerships with the U.S. government. In addition, federal
agencies would be allowed to provide financial assistance to
those educational institutions, including the loan of equipment
and instructional materials. CBO has no specific information
about how this joint NID/DoD program would be implemented.
Assuming that participation levels would be similar to those
for another foreign language program offered within the
National Security Education Trust Fund, CBO estimates that the
new program would cost about $1 million a year.
Section 1056 would allow the NID to establish a
civilian linguist reserve corps consisting of U.S. citizens
with advanced levels of proficiency in foreign languages. CBO
assumes that members of the reserve corps would receive pay,
transportation, and per diem when performing work for the
federal government as requested by the President. The pilot
project would be conducted for a three-year period, starting in
2005. Based on information provided by the staff of the
National Security Education Program, CBO expects that the
reserve corps would consist of about 150 people at any given
time and cost about $50 million over the 2005-2007 period.
Section 1062 would establish an Emerging
Technologies Panel within the National Security Agency to
advise the NID on the research, development, and application of
existing and emerging science and technology advances, advances
in encryption, and other topics. Based on the budgets of other
advisory panels, CBO estimates that the costs to operate this
panel would be about $1 million in 2005 and would total $10
million over the 2005-2009 period.
Combating Financial Crimes. Sections 2101 and 2102 would
authorize the appropriation of $51 million for fiscal year 2005
for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Center to improve its
computer systems and to assist states and localities in
combating financial crimes. CBO estimates that this provision
would result in outlays of $36 million in 2005 and $15 million
in 2006, assuming appropriation of the specified amount.
Aviation Security. Title II would authorize the
appropriation of the funds necessary to continue aviation
security programs in 2006 and to deploy explosive-detection
equipment atairport check points. Based on information from DHS
and current funding levels, CBO estimates that title II would authorize
the appropriation of about $5.2 billion over the 2005-2007 period for
aviation security programs administered by the Department of Homeland
Security. We estimate that most of that amount--roughly $4 billion--
would be authorized to be appropriated in fiscal year 2006 for ongoing
programs administered by the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA) and for the federal air marshals. (That estimate is net of almost
$2 billion in offsetting collections from passenger and air-carrier
fees that we assume will continue to be collected by DHS in 2006 to
partly offset the cost of aviation security programs in that year.)
This estimate also includes almost $1 billion over the 2005-2007 period
for installing explosive-detection equipment at airport screening
checkpoints and $70 million in 2005 for programs to better control
access to airports, improve passenger screening, and train federal law
enforcement officials in certain counterterrorism measures. In
addition, title II would specifically authorize the appropriation of
$95 million in 2005 for security projects at airports and $2 million
for a pilot program to test technology to reduce the threat of
explosions of baggage and cargo on commercial flights. Assuming
appropriation of the specified and estimated amounts, CBO estimates
that implementing all of these provisions would cost $238 million in
2005 and $5.2 billion over the 2005-2009 period.
Improve the Intelligence Capabilities of the FBI. Section
2193 would direct the FBI to continue to improve the
intelligence capabilities of the bureau and to develop and
maintain a national intelligence workforce within the FBI.
Today, the FBI spends about $30 million on counterterrorism
training. Since 2002, more than 1,500 agents have been added to
the bureau's staff to meet its counterterrorism mission, an
increase of about 20 percent. In addition, since the events of
September 11, 2001, the FBI has partnered with other
intelligence agencies to provide training in counterterrorism
and counterintelligence to its staff, and it plans to increase
that training in the future. CBO assumes that implementation of
this bill would require the agency to conduct more extensive
training than is currently planned. Based on information from
the bureau, we estimate that this additional training would
cost $3 million in 2005 and almost $30 million over the 2005-
2009 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts.
Interoperable Law Enforcement and Intelligence Data System.
Under the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of
2002 (Public Law 107-173), the Administration is required to
integrate all law enforcement data into an interoperable
electronic data system known as the Chimera system. However,
the act did not establish a firm date by which the
Administration must deploy a fully operational Chimera system.
Section 2192 would transfer the responsibility for this
activity to the NID. The provision would direct the NID to
design a state-of-the-art Chimera system with both biometric
identification and linguistic capabilities satisfying the best
technology standards, and to deliver a fully operational system
by September 11, 2007, for use by the intelligence community,
federal law enforcement agencies, and counterterrorism
personnel to collect and share information. Although CBO
believes that establishing a firm deadline for the operational
system would likely result in increased discretionary spending
in the near term, CBO does not have sufficient information to
estimate that increase at this time. Absent information as to
whether this transfer would result in changes to the system,
CBO also cannot estimate whether any long-term costs would
result from this transfer.
Increase the Number of Border Patrol and Immigration
Agents. Sections 3003 and 3004 would direct DHS to increase the
number of border patrol agents by 2,000 per year and the number
of investigators of immigration violations by 800 each year
over the 2006-2010 period. Implementing this provision would
increase the number of federal agents by 14,000 by 2010.
Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates
that this provision would cost $165 million in fiscal year 2006
and $3.1 billion over the 2006-2009 period.
Grants To Improve the Security of Driver's Licenses.
Section 3055 would authorize the appropriation of such sums as
necessary for fiscal years 2005 through 2009 for DHS to make
grants to states to cover the costs of improving the security
of driver's licenses as required by the bill. Based on
information from states and from the American Association of
Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), CBO estimates that
implementing this provision would cost $80 million in 2005 and
$160 million over the 2005-2009 period, assuming appropriation
of the necessary amounts.
New Standards for Issuance of Birth and Death Certificates.
Sections 3062 and 3063 would require new federal standards
governing the issuance and management of birth certificates
recognized by the federal government. Section 3064 would
require the establishment of a uniform electronic birth and
death registration system, and section 3065 would extend that
system to allow electronic verification of vital records.
Maintaining birth and death records has long been a
function of state governments. The Secretary of Health and
Human Services, acting through the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC), currently works with states to compile
birth and death data for epidemiological studies. H.R. 10 would
authorize the Secretary to expand that cooperation to the
formal linking of birth and death records for purposes of
preventing fraud and other government uses. The bill also would
authorize the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary
for these activities, including grants to states to comply with
these new requirements.
Based on information from the CDC and the National
Association for Public Health Statistics and Information
Systems, CBO estimates that implementing the new security
standards and building the electronic system of vital records
would cost $460 million over the 2005-2009 period, assuming
appropriation of the necessary amounts. That cost would be for
grants to states to meet the new federal requirements. Of these
amounts, $70 million in 2005 and $330 million over the 2005-
2009 period would cover start-up costs, including digitalizing
old birth and death certificates, building electronic systems
for reporting deaths in some states, upgrading security
arrangements, and acquiring computer infrastructure. CBO
estimates that operating the new system for vital records over
the 2006-2009 period would cost $130 million. We expect that
the system would be fully operational in 2009, at which point
annual operating costs would total $50 million.
Expand Immigration Services at Foreign Airports. Sections
3082 and 3083 would authorize the appropriation of $49 million
for 2005, $88 million for 2006, and $137 million for 2007 for
DHS to expand preinspection services and immigration security
at foreign airports. CBO estimates that implementing this
provision would cost $274 million over the 2005-2009 period,
assuming appropriation of the specified amounts.
Increase the Number of Consular Officers. Section 3084
would authorize the Secretary of State to increase the number
of consular officers by 150 each year over the number allotted
in the previous year during the 2006-2009 period. It also would
authorize the Secretary to provide additional training to
consular officers in the detection of fraudulent documents
presented by applicants for admission into the United States.
Based on the average cost of training and stationing consular
officers overseas, CBO estimates that implementing the
provision would cost $27 million in 2006 and $280 million over
the 2006-2009 period.
Reform International Cooperation and Coordination. Title IV
would require the President to produce numerous reports,
express the sense of the Congress on many issues, and urge the
President to seek agreements with other countries to improve
cooperation in the global fight against terrorist
organizations. The title also would authorize some additional
spending. Subtitle D, the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act
Amendments of 2004, would authorize additional rule-of-law,
disarmament, and counternarcotics activities in Afghanistan by
the U.S. Department of State, but would not increase the
overall authorization of appropriations above the $425 million
authorized for each of fiscal years 2005 and 2006 in current
law.
Title IV contains three indefinite authorizations of
appropriations and other provisions that CBO estimates would
cost $7 million in 2005 and $63 million over the 2005-2009
period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. In the
cases where the same provision has been included in other bills
at specified authorization levels, CBO used that authorization
level for this estimate. CBO assumes that spending for these
programs will follow the historical pattern of similar
programs.
Section 4041 would authorize the appropriation of
such sums as may be necessary in 2005, 2006, and 2007 to
provide grants to American-sponsored schools in predominately
Muslim countries to provide scholarships to students from
lower- and middle-income families of those countries. H.R.
4303, the American Education Promotion Act, as ordered reported
by the House Committee on International Relations on June 24,
2004, would authorize the appropriation of $5 million each year
for such grants. That amount is included in this estimate.
Section 4042 would authorize the appropriation of
such sums as may be necessary in 2005, 2006, and 2007 for
grants by the National Endowment for Democracy to enhance free
and independent media worldwide. H.R. 1950, the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005, as
reported by the House Committee on International Relations on
May 16, 2003, would have authorized $15 million for such
grants. CBO assumes the amount would be provided in three equal
installments over the three-year period.
Section 4103 would authorize the appropriation of
such sums as may be necessary for programs to reduce the number
of shoulder-fired missiles. For the purpose of the estimate,
CBO assumed the appropriation of $5 million each year, an
amount similar to the cost of other programs for reducing the
availability of small arms.
Section 4035 would establish within the Department
of State an Office on Multilateral Negotiations. In our
estimate for H.R. 4053, the United States International
Leadership Act of 2004, as ordered reported by the House
Committee on International Relations on March 31, 2004, CBO
estimated that establishing and operating an Office on
Multilateral Negotiations would cost $2 million a year.
Sections 4011 and 4012 would require the Secretary
of State to fill vacancies on the Arms Control and
Nonproliferation Advisory Board and to provide resources to
procure the services of experts and consultants. Based on the
cost of other advisory boards, CBO estimates that implementing
these sections would cost less than $200,000 a year.
First-Responder Grants. Subtitle A of title V would
authorize funding for grants to state and local governments for
staff and equipment to respond to acts of terrorism and natural
disasters. It would authorize the Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security to change the criteria used to distribute
funding for four existing first-responder grant programs--the
State Homeland Security, the Urban Area Security Initiative,
the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention, and the Citizen Corps
grant programs. Assuming appropriation of the necessary funds,
CBO estimates that implementing this subtitle would cost $3.8
billion over the 2008-2009 period.
Almost $10 billion has been appropriated for first-
responder grants since fiscal year 2003, including about $3
billion in fiscal year 2004. The Office of Domestic
Preparedness (within DHS) derives its primary authority to
distribute grants to states and localities to prepare and
respond to terrorism from the USA Patriot Act (Public Law 107-
56). That law authorized the appropriation of such sums as
necessary for first-responder grants through fiscal year 2007.
This subtitle would supersede this authority for first-
responder grants in the Patriot Act and continue the
authorization to appropriate such sums as necessary after 2007.
For this estimate, CBO assumes that the amount in CBO's
baseline--$3.3 billion--would be appropriated for first-
responder grants in 2008 and that 2009 funding levels for
first-responder grants would continue at that level, adjusted
for anticipated inflation.
Counternarcotics Office. Section 5021 would authorize the
appropriation of $6 million in fiscal year 2005 to strengthen
the authority of the Counternarcotics Officer at DHS. Under the
bill, the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement would be
responsible for coordinating policies and federal operations
aimed at preventing the entry of illegal drugs into the United
States. DHS currently has a Counternarcotics Officer within the
Chief of Staff's office. According to that office, the
Counternarcotics Office is working with limited authority to
coordinate the agency's anti-drug effort. Assuming the
appropriation of the necessary amounts to continue this effort
over the next five years, CBO estimates that implementing this
provision would cost $28 million over the 2005-2009 period.
FBI Reserve Service. Section 5053 would allow the FBI to
establish a reserve service consisting of former employees of
the FBI who would be eligible for temporary reemployment during
a period of national emergency. Under the bill, the total
number of personnel in this reserve service could not exceed
500 individuals. Members of the reserve service would receive
reimbursement for transportation and per diem expenses when
participating in any training, and members who are retired
federal employees would be allowed to collect both pay and
retirement benefits during their period of reemployment. CBO
cannot predict when a national emergency might occur, so no
costs are included in this estimate for activating the proposed
FBI Reserve Service. In most years, CBO expects that the cost
associated with the reserve service would be insignificant--
mostly covering limited training time, per diem, and
transportation expenses. In an emergency, if all members of the
reserve corps were reemployed for six months, the costs would
total about $25 million.
Security Clearance Modernization. Beginning five years
after enactment of this bill, section 5076 would require the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to achieve a 60-day
turnaround period for all security clearances requested by
federal agencies. Currently, OPM anticipates that by the fall
of 2005 the typical turnaround period for security clearances
will be approximately 120 days. Based on information from OPM,
CBO expects that approximately 1,700 new investigators would
have to be hired over the next three years to meet the 60-day
standard. With an average annual cost of about $80,000 per
investigator, and assuming the appropriation of thenecessary
amounts, CBO estimates that this provision would cost $483 million over
the 2005-2009 period.
Interoperability of Public Safety Communications. Section
5131 would establish a program within DHS to provide assistance
and training to enhance the interoperability of public safety
communication among federal, state, and local governments in
high-risk jurisdictions. DHS currently conducts activities to
enhance communications; however, according to that office, it
is working with limited funds and legal authority. Based on
information from DHS, CBO estimates that implementing this
section would cost $29 million over the 2005-2009 period.
Direct spending
The bill contains provisions that would decrease direct
spending (see Table 4). CBO estimates that enacting those
provisions would decrease direct spending by about $25 million
in 2005, $4 million over the 2005-2009 period, and $2 million
over the 2005-2014 period. The estimate of direct spending does
not include spending associated with extending the authority of
the CIA to offer incentive payments to employees who
voluntarily retire or resign because the data needed to prepare
such an estimate are classified.
TABLE 4.--CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING UNDER H.R. 10 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Budget Authority...... * * * * * * * * * *
Estimated Outlays............... -25 -12 19 10 5 3 * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These amounts do not include the costs of section 1061 because the data needed to prepare an estimate are
classified.
Note.--* = between zero and -$500,000.
Authority To Offer Incentive Payments to Employees of the
CIA Who Voluntarily Resign or Retire. Section 1061 would extend
indefinitely the authority of the CIA to offer incentive
payments to employees who voluntarily retire or resign. Under
current law, this authority would expire on September 30, 2005.
This section also would eliminate the requirement that the CIA
make a deposit to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability
Fund equal to 15 percent of final pay for each employee who
accepts an incentive payment. Extending authority to offer
incentive payments to these employees could increase outlays
from the Civil Service Retirement System in the near term,
although those amounts would be offset by reduced retirement
payments in later years. CBO cannot provide an estimate of the
direct spending effects because the data needed for such an
estimate are classified.
Aviation Security. Section 2177 would establish a fund
within DHS to enhance efforts to detect explosives at security
checkpoints in airports. The bill would authorize the
collection and spending of $30 million a year of fees from
airline passengers in 2005 and 2006.
The cost of the new program would be offset by fee
collections authorized under the bill. TSA already collects a
$2.50 fee from airline passengers each time they board an
aircraft (with a maximum of $5.00 per one-way trip). Under
current law, such fees may be collected only to the extent
provided for in advance in appropriations acts, and income from
those fees is recorded as an offset to appropriated spending.
H.R. 10 would require TSA to collect up to $30 million a year
from passengers without appropriation action. Under H.R. 10, we
estimate that the agency would collect that amount each year.
Because H.R. 10 would cause such fees to be used to finance the
activities related to explosives detection at airport
checkpoints, such fees would not be available to reduce the
costs of other TSA spending. In other words, the collections
under H.R. 10 would lead to a reduction in the amount of fees
recorded as offsets to appropriated spending--essentially
changing some discretionary offsetting collections into
mandatory offsetting receipts.
Based on historical spending patterns for similar
activities, CBO estimates that fees collected under this
provision would exceed the amounts actually spent for
explosives detection for the next few years. Hence, we estimate
that enacting section 2177 would reduce net direct spending by
$37 million in 2005 and 2006, but would increase net direct
spending in later years and have no net impact on the budget
over the 2005-2014 period.
Increased Fines for New Federal Crimes. Several sections in
title II would establish new federal crimes for offenses
relating to the commission of terrorist acts. Because those
prosecuted and convicted under the bill could be subject to
fines, the federal government might collect additional fines if
the legislation is enacted. Criminal fines are deposited as
receipts in the Crime Victims Fund and later spent. CBO expects
any additional revenues and direct spending under the bill
would be negligible because of the small number of cases
involved.
Authority To Waive Separation Age Requirement for FBI
Agents. Section 5051 would provide the FBI with the ability to
allow agents to remain at the agency beyond the age of 60.
Under current law, FBI agents are required to retire at age 57,
although the agency's director may waive that requirement until
the agent turns 60. This section would allow the director to
waive the mandatory retirement requirement until age 65. This
authority would last though the end of 2009, at which time the
waiver authority would revert to current law. Information
provided by the FBI indicates that the agency issues waivers to
between 25 and 75 employees annually. By expanding the current
waiver authority, CBO expects the bill would cause some FBI
employees to retire later than they otherwise would have. We
anticipate this would cause retirement annuities to fall in the
near term, and to increase after the expanded waiver authority
expires in 2009. CBO estimates this section would reduce direct
spending for retirement benefits by less than $500,000 in 2005
and by a total of $2 million over the 2005-2014 period.
Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments:
H.R. 10 contains several intergovernmental mandates as defined
in UMRA. The major mandates would require state, local, and
tribal governments to significantly change the way they process
and issue driver's licenses, identification cards, and birth
and death certificates. The costs to state, local, and tribal
governments would depend on federal regulations that are yet to
be developed. However, based on information from state
agencies, CBO estimates that, in aggregate, the
intergovernmental mandates in the bill would impose costs on
state, local, and tribal governments totaling more than $600
million over fiscal years 2005 through 2009.CBO estimates that
the costs in at least one of those years would exceed the threshold
established in UMRA ($60 million in 2004, adjusted annually for
inflation). The bill would authorize appropriations for grants to
states to cover such costs.
Intergovernmental mandates with significant costs
Driver's Licenses. H.R. 10 would effectively require state
agencies that issue driver's licenses to comply with new
standards for producing, verifying, and ensuring the security
of driver's licenses and identification cards. Those provisions
would be effective three years after the bill's enactment. CBO
considers these standards to be mandates because any driver's
licenses issued after that time would be invalid for federal
identification purposes unless they met those requirements.
Based on information from AAMVA and other groups
representing state and local governments, CBO expects that
states would face significant additional costs to administer
the new system. Specifically, state licensing agencies would be
required to verify, with the issuing agency, each document
presented as proof of identification and residency. Agencies
such as the Social Security Administration currently charge a
fee for each verification, and assuming that other agencies
would charge similar fees, states would incur ongoing costs as
well as one-time costs to upgrade computer systems to meet
those requirements. States also would face significant costs to
upgrade computer systems to digitize and store electronic
copies of all source documents and to create and maintain the
Driver's License Agreement, an interstate database to share
driver information. Finally, certain states that do not
currently require background checks for certain employees would
face additional costs to complete those checks.
CBO assumes that states would begin to establish procedures
for complying with these standards in 2005, the year following
the bill's enactment; we estimate that they would incur
additional costs totaling $80 million during that first year
and another $80 million over fiscal years 2006 through 2009.
Issuance and Verification of Vital Statistics Information.
H.R. 10 also would impose several intergovernmental mandates
with significant costs on state, local, and tribal agencies
that issue birth and death certificates. Those agencies would
effectively be required to print birth certificates on safety
paper, to establish a central database of vital information,
and to ensure that certain employees have security clearances.
Those provisions also would be effective three years after the
bill's enactment. Certificates issued after that date would be
invalid for certain purposes unless they met those
requirements. We estimate that state, local, and tribal
governments would face additional costs to comply with those
requirements totaling more than $70 million in 2005, and almost
$400 million over fiscal years 2006 through 2009. Most of those
costs would be for upgrading computer software and hardware,
and for staff time to convert existing paper records into
electronic records. These are mostly one-time costs that would
be incurred over the five-year period.
Mandates With No Significant Costs. The bill also contains
several other inter-governmental mandates, but CBO expects that
they would probably not impose significant additional costs on
state, local, or tribal governments. Specifically, the bill
would:
Require state licensing agencies to include
minimum features on all driver's license and identification
cards, including full legal name, date of birth, gender,
driver's license or identification number, photo, legal
address, physical security features, and machine-readable
technology. According to AAMVA, all states currently include
these minimum features on licenses.
Require state agencies to meet minimum standards
before issuing driver's licenses, including documenting the
individual's name, date of birth, address, and proof of Social
Security number. While states currently set their own standards
for such information, all states currently require at least
this minimum documentation.
Require states to maintain a database of driver
information; require states to implement training classes for
employees to identify fraudulent documents; and require
documents and supplies to be securely stored. According to
state officials, all states currently comply with those
requirements.
Require offices that maintain vital information to
comply with requirements for securing their buildings. Based on
information from representatives of state offices of vital
statistics, CBO believes that most offices already would be in
compliance, assuming that the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security would establish minimum security requirements
in any event.
Require that state and local governments limit
access to birth and death certificates. Fourteen states
currently allow public access to those records, but CBO
estimates that they would incur no additional costs to limit
access.
Prohibit states from accepting any foreign
document, other than an official passport, for identification
purposes for the issuance of driver's licenses. Currently, at
least 10 states accept identification cards issued by foreign
governments, such as the ``matricula consular'' issued by
Mexico. This prohibition would preempt state authority.
Require states to resolve any discrepancies that
arise from verifying Social Security numbers, though the
language is unclear as to what specific actions would be
required. Currently, at least two states prohibit their
employees from enforcing immigration laws, and many of those
discrepancies may be related to immigration. This requirement
might preempt those state laws.
Prohibit states from displaying Social Security
numbers on driver's licenses or from including Social Security
numbers (SSNs) in bar codes, magnetic strips, or similar
devices. CBO has found few instances where states used SSNs as
identifiers on licenses or coded SSNs in some other manner on
the license.
Require all law enforcement officers who are
armed, including state and local personnel, to have a
standardized credential when traveling on aircraft. CBO assumes
TSA would establish and issue such credentials.
Estimated impact on the private sector: The bill contains
no private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Previous CBO estimates: On October 4, 2004, CBO transmitted
a cost estimate for H.R. 10 as ordered reported by the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on September 29,
2004. The two versions of the bill are almost identical. The
differences in the legislation do not affect the estimated
costs of either bill. Thus, the two CBO estimates are
identical.
On September 24, 2004, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for
S. 2840, the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, as
reported by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. Both
bills would create a new Office of the National Intelligence
Director and reform certain aspects of the intelligence
community. H.R. 10 also would reform terrorism prevention and
prosecution, border security, and international cooperation and
coordination activities--areas not addressed by S. 2840.
Differences in the estimated costs reflect differences between
the two bills.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Intelligence Programs:
Raymond J. Hall, Homeland Security: Megan Carroll and Julie
Middleton, Justice: Mark Grabowicz, Vital Records: Timothy J.
Gronniger, International Programs: Joseph C. Whitehill, General
Government: Matthew Pickford. Impact on State, Local, and
Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell. Impact on the Private
Sector: Chad Goldberg.
Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis
COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the committee generally concurs with
the estimate as contained in the report of the Congressional
Budget Office.
OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, this legislation results from
hearings and other oversight activities conducted by the
committee pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) rule X and are reflected
in the body of this report.
With respect to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this legislation does not
include any new spending or credit authority, nor does it
provide for any increase or decrease in tax revenues or
expenditures. The bill does, however, authorize appropriations.
Other fiscal features of this legislation are addressed in the
estimate prepared by the committee under clause 3(d)(2) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules
for the House of Representatives, this legislation would
address several general and outcome related performance goals
and objectives. The general goal and objective of this
legislation is to improve the quality and accuracy of
intelligence analysis conducted by the intelligence community,
and to improve intelligence sharing among all users of national
intelligence. This legislation seeks to accomplish this goal by
establishing a National Intelligence Director (NID), separate
from the Central Intelligence Agency, as the central authority
over national intelligence programs. This legislation seeks to
accomplish this objective by providing the NID with expanded,
statutory, budgetary, and personnel powers to centrally manage
the national intelligence community, while at the same time
ensuring the ability of the Secretary of Defense to provide
direct intelligence support for the military user.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the committee finds the authority for
this legislation in Article I, section 8 of the United States
Constitution.
STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES
Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104-4,
intergovernmental mandates, and federal mandates with respect
to state, local, and tribal governments, contained in this Act
are addressed in the report of the Congressional Budget Office.
This Act provides no private sector mandates.
RECORD VOTES
In accordance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, record and voice votes were taken
with respect to the committee's consideration of H.R. 10. The
record of these votes is attached to this report.
The committee ordered H.R. 10, as amended, reported to the
House with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 59-0, a
quorum being present.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
The committee intends to take steps to make available the
analysis of changes in existing law made by the bill, as
required by clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
We want to register our objections to the manner in which
the Armed Services Committee came to consider H.R. 10, a bill
that would reorganize our national intelligence apparatus. We
also regret the action taken by the committee during its mark
up of this legislation.
How we fix the national intelligence mechanisms that let us
down in the attacks of September 11, 2001 deserves careful
review. Literally, our national security may depend on what we
legislate. Unfortunately, the way in which this bill was put
together and is being pushed through the House is not likely to
produce a result that will serve the country well over the long
term.
The starting point for our concern is our view that our
national security should be a bipartisan proposition.
Historically, legislation affecting our national security has
been undertaken in a bipartisan spirit during consideration in
the Armed Services Committee. The recommendations of the 9/11
Commission were both unanimous and bipartisan. Bipartisan bills
consistent with the commission's recommendations have been
introduced in both chambers.
Unfortunately, the way H.R. 10 was put together marks a
dramatic departure from this important tradition. House
Democrats were not consulted in the drafting of this bill, but
there's no reason we should not have been. We on this side of
the aisle are just as committed to a strong national defense,
to supporting our troops, and to making sure they have the
battlefield intelligence they need as our Republican
colleagues. We have useful, constructive ideas about how to
reform the intelligence community that could have made this
bill better from its inception. It is disappointing to see this
bill handled in such a partisan way.
Apart from the writing of the bill, the process that
brought us to this point has been deficient. This 542 page bill
was introduced last Friday and marked up Wednesday. Because
members were back home working in their districts until Tuesday
evening, there was precious little time for members to review
the bill before it was considered in committee. Moreover, whole
titles of this bill fall within the legislative jurisdiction of
other committees, such as the International Relations and
Homeland Security Committees, but those committees were not
permitted to mark up the bill. The members of the House deserve
the opportunity to review legislation before they pass
judgment, and it is regrettable that they were deprived of such
an opportunity in this case.
We also believe that a matter of this importance should not
be considered in such a partisan manner in the final days of a
heated election cycle, in which everything we do is colored by
politics. A more responsible approach would have been to
introduce and consider bipartisan legislation in the days
following the issuance of the 9/11 Commission report, when
election year politics were not as predominant. In addition,
marking up this bill the week before Congress adjourns makes
the chances both Houses will pass bills and conference them
before the end of the session remote. The timing of the
committee's mark up suggests that consideration of this bill
was driven by politics, and we believe it is wrong to seek to
exploit a subject as important as intelligence reform for
political purposes.
The other bills in Congress, at least one of which has been
endorsed by the 9/11 commissioners, would have presented the
opportunity for the committee, indeed the Congress, to consider
intelligence reform issues in the bipartisan fashion that
characterized their development. Why didn't we consider one of
these bills instead of one created out of whole cloth behind
closed doors and on a partisan basis?
Reforming our government's intelligence and other
counterterrorism mechanisms is terribly important. There was no
reason for the partisanship and cavalier process. We can only
hope that our national security will not suffer in the long run
as a result.
Ike Skelton.
John Spratt.
Solomon P. Ortiz.
Lane Evans.
Neil Abercrombie.
Martin T. Meehan.
Silvestre Reyes.
Vic Snyder.
Jim Turner.
Adam Smith.
Loretta Sanchez.
Mike McIntyre.
Ciro D. Rodriguez.
Ellen O. Tauscher.
Robert A. Brady.
Baron Hill.
John B. Larson.
Susan A. Davis.
Jim Langevin.
Steve Israel.
Rick Larsen.
Jim Cooper.
Kendrick B. Meek.
Madeleine Z. Bordallo.
Tim Ryan.
Charles N. Stenholm.