House Limits Debate on Largest Intelligence Budget Ever
House Republicans foreclosed Democratic efforts to offer amendments on warrantless domestic surveillance and other controversial intelligence topics when the FY 2007 Intelligence Authorization Act was brought to the floor yesterday.
Instead, the House approved by a vote of 327-96 what Rep. Leonard Boswell (R-Iowa) described as “the largest intelligence budget in our history.”
Democratic amendments, such as a proposal that domestic surveillance be conducted consistent with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, were blocked in the Rules Committee so they could not be debated.
“We are not even going to be allowed to vote on an amendment that would deal with this central constitutional question,” complained Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA).
“We are now in the process of instructing the people of Iraq about how to ruin parliamentary democracy,” he said. “If anybody from the Iraqi Parliament is watching our procedures, please do not try this at home.”
See the April 26 House floor debate here.
The House Rules Committee report which identifies the Democratic amendments that were ruled out of order is House Report 109-438.
After months of delay, the council tasked by President Trump to review the FEMA released its final report. Our disaster policy nerds have thoughts.
FAS and FLI partnered to build a series of convenings and reports across the intersections of artificial intelligence (AI) with biosecurity, cybersecurity, nuclear command and control, military integration, and frontier AI governance. This project brought together leaders across these areas and created a space that was rigorous, transpartisan, and solutions-oriented to approach how we should think about how AI is rapidly changing global risks.
Investment should instead be directed at sectors where American technology and innovation exist but the infrastructure to commercialize them domestically does not—and where the national security case is clear.
AI is already consequential, but its future trajectory remains contested. Policymakers should make their assumptions explicit, focus on what can be shaped rather than what can be perfectly predicted, and build institutions that can learn and respond as evidence changes.