Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on H.R. 2330 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2330) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1994 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the U.S. Government and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of the conferees.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the Record of November 18, 1993.)
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 2330, the intelligence authorization bill; that the conference report be agreed to; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements therein appear in the Record at the appropriate place as though read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
So the conference report was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I support adoption of the conference report on H.R. 2330, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994. I wish to commend Senators DeConcini, Nunn, Thurmond, Inouye, and Stevens, whose mutual cooperation in leading the Intelligence Committee, the Armed Services Committee, and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee ensured effective funding for U.S. intelligence activities for fiscal year 1994. We appreciate also the cooperation we received from our counterparts in the other body.
With the end of the cold war and the dissolution of the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact military alliance, the United States had hoped for a new world order with stable and steady progress toward greater democracy, freedom, and free enterprise. What the United States faces in the post-cold-war era, however, is a more chaotic environment with multiple challenges to U.S. interests around the globe.
In an unstable world of diverse and increasing challenges, the need for effective, reliable intelligence capabilities, especially to support our Armed Forces, has grown rather than diminished. Enactment of H.R. 2330 will help build and maintain the intelligence capabilities we need for the future.
For the reasons set forth in the minority views accompanying the intelligence committee report on the original Senate version of the fiscal year 1994 intelligence authorization bill (S. Report. 103-115), I would have preferred a level of funding for intelligence activities higher than the conference recommended. Among other things, such activities are an important force multiplier for our Armed Forces in meeting an increasing variety of challenges. Funding for the full range of Federal activities has grown extremely tight, especially in recent months as Congress has considered fiscal year 1994 funding bills, which is appropriate to protect American taxpayers' interests. It is in this context that I support adoption of the conference report on H.R. 2330.
Within the overall intelligence funding level to which the committee of conference agreed--which must, of course, remain secret--the conference has generally distributed the funding among the various intelligence programs effectively, to maximize the capability achieved from the given level of resources.
Sections 309 and 310 of the conference report on H.R. 2330 relate to section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947, which addresses obligation and expenditure of appropriated funds for intelligence and intelligence-related activities.
Section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 allows obligation and expenditure of appropriated funds for intelligence activities only in three situations. First, the appropriated funds may be used for an intelligence or intelligence-related activity when such use of the funds for the activity has been `specifically authorized by the Congress,' a phrase defined in the statute. Second, the appropriated funds may be used for an intelligence or intelligence-related activity when the funds involved are funds appropriated for the CIA reserve for contingencies and the congressional Intelligence and Appropriations Committees have been notified. Third, the appropriated funds may be used for an intelligence or intelligence-related activity if they were specifically authorized by Congress for a different activity and the activity for which they are instead proposed to be used is of higher priority, is based on unforeseen requirements, and the congressional intelligence and appropriations committees have been notified.
The phrase `specifically authorized by the Congress' as defined and used in sections 504 (a)(1) and (a)(3), means specifically authorized by statute, a requirement that cannot be satisfied by notification to and concurrence by committees of Congress. That interpretation is mandated under the constitutional principles enunciated in INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), is supported by the text of the very legislative provision originally adding the provision to the National Security Act, is supported by the legislative history reflected in a statement on the House floor at the time of the adoption of the final version of the legislation in 1985, is supported by the consistent practice of the Congress since then in enacting waivers of section 504(a)(1) as part of appropriations continuing resolutions enacted at the close of fiscal years when the annual intelligence authorization bills had not yet been enacted, and is supported most recently by enactment of section 8152 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1994 (Public Law 103-139). My statement upon introduction of the Intelligence Authorization Process Adjustment Act (S. 1578), printed in the Congressional Record of October 21, 1993, sets this matter forth in further detail.
Provisions of section 504 require notification to appropriate committees of Congress of certain proposed funding transactions. Those provisions were enacted with the understanding that, as a matter of comity between the executive and legislative branches, the concurrence of the committees will be obtained before certain proposed transactions go forward. The statutory requirements in section 504 for advance notification to the committees of Congress are consistent with the Constitution (see Sibbach v. Wilson, 312 U.S. 1, 24 (1941)). Any theory that a
statutory requirement for notification of the congressional intelligence committees in advance of the use of funds for intelligence or intelligence-related activities could in any way be construed as an unconstitutional condition has been considered and is rejected. Such a theory was propounded in the erroneous and recently published July 31, 1989 advisory opinion, addressing never-enacted legislation, by the Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Legal Counsel concerning notification of the intelligence committees of use of funding for certain CIA activities.
I regret that the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 does not include a needed amendment to section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947. The amendment the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence had intended to pursue, which I introduced recently as S. 1578, would have made it legally unnecessary to pursue supplemental intelligence authorization statutes in situations in which funds are appropriated for intelligence or intelligence-related activities in excess of, or in the absence, of authorization of appropriations for such activities.
The legislation I have introduced as S. 1578 to modify section 504 of the National Security Act should be enacted to, first, ensure compliance with the Constitution and laws of the United States in the funding and conduct of intelligence activities; second, preserve the Congress's power of the purse with respect to these sensitive activities; and third, ensure sufficient flexibility for the executive branch in the conduct of intelligence activities.
Section 309 of the conference report on H.R. 2330 amends section 307 of the National Security Act of 1947. Section 307 of the National Security Act contains a general statement that there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions and purposes of the act. Such general language does not suffice to meet the requirements in section 504 of the National Security Act that, to obligate or expend funds for an intelligence or intelligence-related activity, such funds must be `specifically authorized by the Congress,' which means that the amount of funds was authorized by statute to be appropriated for that activity. To make that point explicit in section 307 of the National Security Act, section 309 of the conference report on H.R. 2330 excludes from the scope of section 307 the intelligence provisions of the National Security Act of 1947.
Section 310 of the conference report on H.R. 2330 ratifies a transaction proposed to the intelligence committees of Congress by the Director of Central Intelligence on August 16, 1993, relating to the accelerated architecture acquisition initiative of the plan to improve the imagery ground architecture. The Director proceeded with that funding transaction, which involved the transfer of funds. The funds proposed to be transferred had not been specifically authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504(a)(3) of the National Security Act, because no statute had authorized appropriation of those funds for an activity. Section 310 of the conference report on H.R. 2330 is necessary to ratify that transaction, which otherwise would violate section 504 of the National Security Act.
Transactions prior to the August 16, 1993 transaction which were undertaken based on the mistaken, but good faith, belief that the phrase `specifically authorized by the Congress' in sections 504 (a)(1) and (a)(3) of the National Security Act could be satisfied by notification to and concurrence by committees of the Congress also are intended to be deemed ratified, which protects certifying and disbursing officers.
I urge adoption of the conference report on H.R. 2330.
Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I am pleased to lay before the Senate the conference report on H.R. 2330, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994. This conference report authorizes appropriations for the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the Federal Government for fiscal year 1994. These include not only the activities of the Central Intelligence Agency, but also the intelligence activities of the Department of Defense, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Departments of State, Treasury, and Energy, respectively.
Because we were unable to get our bill to the floor until last week, the conferees have had to compress a lot of work into a very short period in order to return this conference report to the floor before adjournment. I want to thank Chairman Glickman, Congressman Combest, and the other conferees on the House side for their cooperation. I also want to thank my friend and colleague, Senator Warner, the distinguished vice chairman of the committee, and the members of our own committee, for the hard work they have put in on this. And, of course, none of this could have been achieved without the extraordinary efforts of the very capable staffs of both authorizing committees.
I think this conference report represents a very solid piece of work. While the funding levels for intelligence are classified by the executive branch, suffice it to say that this year's bill represents a significant reduction in terms of what had been requested by the administration. Last year, Congress cut the intelligence budget by 10 percent. This year we are essentially holding the line at last year's level. We simply cannot continue to take such severe cuts without seriously damaging our capabilities. This conference report takes a sensible, moderate course, which leaves the intelligence community with sufficient resources to do its important work. I commend it to my colleagues.