[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 108 (Thursday, July 25, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1135-E1136]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014-

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 24, 2013

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2397) making 
     appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes:

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and 
wish to express my appreciation to Defense Appropriations Subcommittee 
Chairman Young and Ranking Member Visclosky for their skillful 
leadership in shepherding H.R. 2397, the Defense Appropriations Act for 
FY2014, to the floor.
  This body has no greater obligation than to ensure that our men and 
women in uniform, and those civilians who support them, have the 
resources needed to keep our country safe. I want to thank the Chairman 
and Ranking Member for crafting a bill that keeps faith with our 
obligation to those who risk their lives to protect our freedoms.
  Madam Chair, let me also express my appreciation to my friend and 
colleague, Congressman Amash, and to Congressman Conyers, the gentleman 
from Michigan and the Ranking Member of Judiciary Committee, for their 
good and hard work in fashioning the bipartisan amendment before us. 
Their work on the Amash-Conyers amendment is an example of what can be 
accomplished when members put aside partisanship and work across the 
aisle in an effort to come up with workable solutions to serious 
problems.
  Madam Chair, the Amash-Conyers Amendment to H.R. 2397 prohibits the 
use of appropriated funds execute any order issued by the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) that does not include the 
following sentence:

       This Order limits the collection of any tangible things 
     (including telephone numbers dialed, telephone numbers of 
     incoming calls, and the duration of calls) that may be 
     authorized to be collected pursuant to this Order to those 
     tangible things that pertain to a person who is the subject 
     of an investigation described in 501 of the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861).

  The Amash-Conyers Amendment was prompted by the recent unauthorized 
disclosures regarding the National Security Agency's collection from 
Verizon of the phone records of all of its American customers, which 
was authorized by the FISA Court pursuant to Section 215 of the Patriot 
Act.
  Public reaction to the news of this massive and secret data gathering 
operation was swift and negative. There was justifiable concern on the 
part of the public and a large percentage of the Members of this body 
that the extent and scale of this NSA data collection operation, which 
exceeded by orders of magnitude anything previously authorized or 
contemplated, may constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy and 
threat to the civil liberties of American citizens.
  To quell the growing controversy, the Director of National 
Intelligence declassified and released limited information about this 
program.

[[Page E1136]]

According to the DNI, the program does not allow the Government to 
listen in on anyone's phone calls. Nor does the information acquired 
include the content of any communications or the identity of any 
subscriber.
  The DNI stated that ``the only type of information acquired under the 
Court's order is telephony metadata, such as telephone numbers dialed 
and length of calls.'' The DNI stated that the data collection was 
``broad in scope because more narrow collection would limit our ability 
to screen for and identify terrorism-related communications. Acquiring 
this information allows us to make connections related to terrorist 
activities over time.''
  As a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I have long been 
committed to safeguarding and protecting the constitutional rights and 
civil liberties of all Americans. Indeed, in 2001 I voted against the 
Patriot Act on the House floor because I was concerned that it did not 
contain sufficient protections to safeguard civil liberties, after it 
was rewritten from the bipartisan committee product that had strong 
civil liberties' protections.
  I am also a charter member of the Homeland Security Committee, which 
is charged with the indispenable role of providing direction, guidance, 
and oversight to the Department of Homeland Security so that it 
fulfills its mission of keeping the homeland safe. So I am very 
familiar and sensitive to the inherent tensions between liberty and 
security.
  I believe the questions raised by supporters of the Amash/Conyers 
Amendment about the NSA metadata program are legitimate, particularly 
the question whether there are sufficient protections for Americans' 
civil liberties. On the other hand, I am concerned that the amendment 
would also have the effect of precluding the use of section 501 to 
obtain an individual order for any business record (not just telephone 
data) about a person associated with someone who is the subject of an 
authorized investigation because of the defunding.
  Madam Chair, striking the appropriate balance between the competing 
interests of national security and civil liberties requires thoughtful 
and careful deliberation. I believe that decisions of this scope and 
moment should be made in the regular legislative process where they are 
first vetted by the committees of jurisdiction which have the resources 
and expertise to examine the issues carefully, debate them fully, and 
to compile a legislative record that will enable the House to render a 
wise and informed judgment.
  Because a funds limitation provision on an appropriations bill is 
poorly suited for this purpose, I do not support the Amash/Conyers 
Amendment. In contrast, I support and am an original co-sponsor of H.R. 
2399, the ``Limiting Internet and Blanket Electronic Review of 
Telecommunications and Email Act of 2013'' (``LIBERT-E'' Act''), 
introduced by Congressmen Conyers and Amash and look forward to working 
with them and Chairman Goodlatte to ensure that this legislation is 
considered under regular order by the Judiciary Committee.
  Similarly, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the 
Judiciary Committee to hold hearings, markup, and report favorably to 
the House H.R. 2440, the ``FISA Court in the Sunshine Act of 2013,'' 
bipartisan legislation I introduced last month that will bring much 
needed transparency without compromising national security to the 
decisions, orders, and opinions of the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Court or ``FISA Court.'' Specifically, my legislation, 
which is the House counterpart to bipartisan companion bill introduced 
in the Senate:
  requires the Attorney General to disclose each decision, order, or 
opinion of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), allowing 
Americans to know how broad of a legal authority the government is 
claiming under the PATRIOT ACT and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act to conduct the surveillance needed to keep Americans safe;
  addresses national security concerns by providing that if a decision 
of the FISA Court cannot be declassified without undermining national 
security interest, then the Attorney General shall disclose a summary 
of the opinion;
  provides that if the Attorney General determines that even a summary 
of opinion would endanger national security interests, the Attorney 
General shall to provide a report to Congress describing the process to 
be implemented to declassify FISA Court opinions; and
  requires the Attorney General to provide an estimate of the number of 
opinions that will be declassified and the number that are expected to 
be withheld because of national security concerns.
  Madam Chair, it is critically important that legislation adopted by 
the House strike the proper balance between national security interests 
and protection of civil rights and liberties and the public's right to 
know. My legislation H.R. 2440, the ``FISA Court in the Sunshine Act of 
2013,'' strikes the proper balance.
  More important, by considering this legislation in regular order 
instead of during the truncated and expedited proceeding that is a 
funding limitation amendment to an appropriations bill, the danger of 
making an incorrect decision can be avoided and the likelihood of 
reaching an informed and carefully calibrated decision that will enjoy 
the support of a majority of the Congress and the public will be 
increased substantially.
  For these reasons, Madam Chair, I must reluctantly oppose the Amash-
Conyers Amendment and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

                          ____________________