Damon Paul Nelson And Matthew Young Pollard Intelligence Authorization Act For Fiscal Years 2018, 2019, And 2020
Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment. Madam Chair, before I get to my objections to the amendment, I want to congratulate the chairman, the majority members of the committee, as well as the majority staff for the…
Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Madam Chair, before I get to my objections to the amendment, I want to congratulate the chairman, the majority members of the committee, as well as the majority staff for the great work they did in helping us bring a fully bipartisan bill to the floor, which I fully intend to support.
They also helped us navigate the intricacies of the Rules Committee so that what we are debating tonight, with the amendments that were put forward, we will be able to support this bill on the floor tomorrow or whenever they decide to bring it up. I thank the chairman for the good work that they put into it.
Madam Chair, I do, though, rise in opposition to this amendment. For the past several years, the House Intelligence Committee has spent a significant amount of time overseeing the intelligence community's ongoing efforts to counter foreign malign influence targeting the United States. Although Russia gains significant and necessary attention given the events of 2016, the committee is also concerned about Chinese, Iranian, and other foreign powers that have designs on sowing discord in the United States or covertly influencing the American populace.
The amendment today would establish a foreign threat response center within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. While I believe my colleague from Massachusetts offers this amendment with the best of intentions, it is clearly redundant to existing efforts and creates an additional and potentially unnecessary bureaucracy within an organization that may not be best suited to take the lead on these actions.
This issue is not new. Last Congress, we worked with the gentleman from Massachusetts in adding a report to the fiscal 2018 and 2019 IAAs that would examine the necessity of a foreign malign influence response center. This report remains in the bill, given that it is a 3-year bill.
I am not convinced of the necessity of such a center, given the ongoing efforts by our intelligence community to address this problem. However, even assuming its necessity, I am concerned that the ODNI may not be the best place for such a center. Based on our ongoing oversight efforts, we know that the interagency is taking the threat of foreign malign influences very seriously. Given the significant counterintelligence impact to the homeland, it may make more sense to house such an entity within the FBI.
I don't believe in putting the cart before the horse. It is important for us to collect all the necessary information in order for Congress to make an informed decision after significant debate on the merits of such a center and whether the ODNI is the right home for it. This debate should happen within the Intelligence Committee. To date, that debate has not occurred.
This amendment would also set up a board to oversee the work of the Foreign Intelligence Center, which would then be overseen by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Again, a redundancy that is, in my estimation, not necessary.
Madam Chair, based on these foregoing reasons, I will oppose the gentleman's amendment and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against it, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that the establishment of such a center should be debated properly within the House Intelligence Committee. It should also be informed by the report that the gentleman was successful in adding to the fiscal 2018 and 2019 Intelligence Authorization Acts, and such debate should focus on the merits of the center, given existing efforts, as well as whether or not the ODNI should house the center.
Until that report is finished, and then the debate happens, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.