[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 98 (Thursday, June 18, 2015)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E922]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 16, 2015

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2596) to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for 
     intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the 
     United States Government, the Community Management Account, 
     and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability 
     System, and for other purposes:

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, as a senior member of the Homeland 
Security Committee and Ranking member of the Judiciary Committee's 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and 
Investigations, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2596, the ``Intelligence 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016,'' for several reasons.
  I opposed the rule because Section 2 of the rule permits the House 
leadership to continue to be postponed through the legislative day of 
Thursday, July 30, 2015, further consideration of the motion to 
reconsider the vote by the House rejecting the Senate amendment to H.R. 
1314, the ``Trade Adjustment Act of 2015.''
  I do not believe it is appropriate to commingle in one rule subjects 
as complex, critical, and disparate as international trade policy, on 
the one hand, and authorization of Intelligence community programs and 
activities, on the other.
  They should be considered separately, debated separately, and voted 
on separately.
  Second, I also opposed the rule because the appropriations authorized 
by H.R. 2596 are predicated on a continuation of the draconian funding 
levels set by sequestration rather than more realistic and responsible 
limits to be negotiated and agreed to by the House and Senate.
  I agree with President Obama that prior to consideration of 
appropriations or annual authorization bills, the House and Senate 
should first reach agreement on a fair and balanced budget framework 
that does not harm our economy or require draconian cuts to middle-
class priorities.
  When applied to national security information gathering, 
sequestration is harmful because it adversely affects the ability of 
the intelligence community to: provide strategic warning to decision-
makers across all levels of government; improve collection technologies 
to exploit existing and future opportunities and increase resilience; 
provide cutting-edge technical analysis of counterintelligence, cyber, 
advanced weapons, and proliferation threats; to spur IC integration; 
and increase intelligence capacity by investing in critical information 
technologies.
  Third, I oppose the bill because it uses funds intended for Overseas 
Contingency Operations (OCO) in a manner that is inappropriate.
  By ignoring the pre-negotiated terms regarding war spending, H.R. 
2596 seeks to take monies budgeted for war and defense and apply them 
to domestic defense while neglecting other vital non-defense priorities 
of the American people.
  Specifically, the bill uses OCO funding to circumvent budget caps in 
defense and intelligence spending and ignores the long-term connection 
between national security and economic security and fails to account 
for vital national security functions carried out at non-defense 
agencies.
  Finally Mr. Chair, I oppose H.R. 2596 on the merits because it 
contains a highly objectionable ban on the use of funds to transfer any 
Guantanamo detainee into the United States or construct or modify 
facilities in the United States to house detainees transferred from 
Guantanamo.
  Also highly objectionable is the provision in the bill providing that 
nothing in the statute authorizing the Privacy and Civil Liberties 
Oversight Board should be construed to allow that Board to gain access 
to information the executive branch deems to be related to covert 
action.
  Mr. Chair, in this digital information age the federal government has 
at its disposal a wealth of resources that enable it to record, track, 
and monitor the daily activities of ordinary law abiding citizens.
  The balance between liberty and security must be respected to 
preserve our way of life and the values that countless generations have 
fought to preserve.
  This includes taking precautionary measures to ensure that their 
lives are safe from eminent danger and terrorist threats both 
domestically and abroad.
  I have long supported effective legislation that seeks to do this 
such as the bipartisan USA FREEDOM Act, which imposes necessary limits 
on the bulk collection of telecommunication metadata on U.S. citizens 
by American intelligence agencies, including the National Security 
Agency.
  Because I have long advocated greater diversity and inclusion in 
government contracting and procurement, I am pleased that H.R. 2596 
includes section 334, which requires the Director of National 
Intelligence to submit a report to Congress regarding participation in 
contracting opportunities by women, minorities, veterans, and small 
businesses awarded by elements of the intelligence community for goods, 
equipment, tools, and services.
  There are several other provisions in the bill that I support, 
including provisions: allowing the Department of Energy's national 
laboratories to compete for homeland security grants; ensuring better 
understanding of FBI resource allocation against domestic and foreign 
threats, and the role of the FBI and DNI in countering violent 
extremism, particularly among young people; promoting greater oversight 
of the Intelligence Community's relationships with certain foreign 
partners; and giving intelligence support to the Ukraine.
  But, on balance, Mr. Chair, H.R. 2596 contains more objectionable 
than salutary provisions, and for that reason I cannot support the bill 
or the rule governing the terms of floor debate.

                          ____________________