Jane Harman

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of his amendment. As the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence just said, we did try to work out a unanimous consent request. We agreed among us, but, sadly, others in this body did not agree. The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is right. This is a modest amendment that will yield good information so that we will proceed to do data mining in an efficient way consistent with protecting the civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. That is all it does. It requires only the Justice Department to prepare a report, not the Defense Department and not other departments in the government. So my view is that we should vote for this amendment now and perfect it later. I agree with the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. It will help us do data mining the right way, and America will be safer for it.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), another valued member of our committee.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a member of our committee.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, the seaside community of El Segundo in my congressional district, rich in so many ways, is a great deal poorer following the death on Saturday of its longtime Mayor and State assembly representative Mike Gordon. Those of us who knew Mike well and the countless others whose lives he touched are devastated by his unexpected and untimely passing. In the course of my public career, few people have had a more profound impact on me and the policies I pursue than Mike Gordon. He was a natural politician, drawn to people, and driven to solve their problems, no matter how big or small. Mike Gordon was a big thinker, one who could see around corners, anticipating the needs of his community and forging, in a strong but sensitive way, its future. He was a mayor, an assembly member, a baseball coach, community activist, party leader, good husband, father, and friend. And when he succumbed to brain cancer in the early morning hours of June 25, he was just 47 years old. When Mike received his dire diagnosis 3 months ago, the broader world of California politics was just opening to him. Years of consensus building and goodwill and enormous potential were cut cruelly short. I grieve for his family: his devoted wife, Denise; and four children; Ryan, Erika, Amanda, and Gordy; and for our larger loss. Madam Speaker, Gordy Gordon designed a rubber bracelet which said ``I am helping Mike fight.'' Though Mike lost that physical fight, we who survive him will carry on the fight for the beliefs we share.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, there are few communities in the world that are instantly recognizable, that immediately conjure up an image, an identity, a lifestyle. Venice, California is one such place--a place that people dream about in the depths of winter; that promises eternal sunshine, warm beaches, buff and shapely lifeguards; and the soothing, ceaseless wash of the waves. On July the 4th, as our Nation celebrates its 229th birthday, Venice, California celebrates its 100th. As a resident of Venice, I am proud to join my neighbors and local leaders in acknowledging this remarkable milestone. Founded in 1905 by real estate entrepreneur Abbot Kinney, Venice was modeled after the canals and boardwalks of its namesake in Italy. Kinney's vision established Venice as an entertainment mecca, attracting visitors from around the world to its amusement park, boardwalk businesses, ocean swimming and street performances. Since its inception, Venice has been a perennial attraction for artists and free spirits, beatnik writers, and innovative musicians-- from Jack Kerouac to the Doors. Venice today remains a hub of artistic expression and cultural diversity with its graffiti art murals, sidewalk musicians, street basketball games, roller skate dancers, bodybuilding competitions, and lively restaurants, shops and cafes. Venice is not only one of the nation's most unique artistic communities, it is booming with well-informed, politically engaged, civic-minded activists. A visit to the wonderful Farmer's Market on any weekend morning provides ample evidence of the community's wide and varying interests. In addition to a great cup of coffee, fresh baked goods and delicious local produce to feed the body, one can feed the mind at the many booths promoting diverse and important political, environmental and local causes. The award-winning Venice Family Clinic is the largest free clinic in the country and provides inspiration to the community through life- saving health care for low-income, uninsured and homeless individuals. Whether through the skills they learn at the Venice Boys & Girls Club or by cultivating their imagination at Venice Arts in Neighborhoods, our children grow up to be productive citizens. Many go on to dedicate themselves to enriching the community through the Venice-Marina Rotary or the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to represent the diverse Venice community in the United States Congress. Each 4th of July, we celebrate two historic events together: American independence and the founding of our hometown.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2475, the strongest intelligence authorization bill to emerge from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in recent memory. Without the funding authorized in this bill, the brave men and women of the intelligence community would not be able to do their jobs which are so vital to the defense of our country. I and many other members of the committee have visited these intelligence professionals in some of the most austere places of the world, and they deserve our gratitude and support. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and thank him and all of the members and staff of our hardworking committee for their bipartisanship and patriotism. As one of our members, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) often says, we put America first. Our members have made a difference. In April 2004, all nine Democrats on the Intelligence Committee introduced legislation that became the basis for the 9/11 Commission's Report and the intelligence reform legislation passed by Congress last fall. That reform dramatically reshaped our intelligence community, unifying 15 agencies under the leadership of a director of National Intelligence. This year's intelligence authorization bill authorizes funds for that new office. The DNI must succeed in his job and he deserves our support. He is responsible for ensuring that intelligence is timely, accurate and actionable. To do this, he needs authority to build and execute budgets and move personnel. So I am pleased that we removed a provision in this bill that would have severely eroded the DNI's authority to move personnel around the intelligence community. Mr. Speaker, in the fight against terrorists, intelligence is the tip of the spear. Some see this fight as a traditional war, requiring wartime emergency budgets and wartime authorities for the President. That may have been the right approach immediately after 9/11. We fought a war in Afghanistan and achieved an impressive victory. But the terrorist threat has changed. Today we no longer face a centralized top-down terrorist organization operating out of one country. We face a network of loosely affiliated terrorist groups which operate as franchises around the world, and that is why I believe we are living in an era of terror. This legislation does some good things to help us achieve victory in an era of terror. First, it ends our reliance on emergency supplemental budgets for counterterrorism. The budget the President sent to Congress this year funded less than 40 percent of the intelligence community counterterrorism requirements, leaving the rest for emergency supplementals. This bill changes that on a bipartisan basis, and we fund 100 percent of CT requirements. Second, this legislation incorporates a resolution introduced by all nine Democrats, urging the new DNI to establish a multi-tiered security clearance system to allow patriotic Americans with relatives in foreign countries to obtain security clearances and serve our Nation. It is high time we do this. This will help with field officers who can speak the languages and blend in with terrorist groups, penetrate proliferation networks, and recruit spies against the toughest targets. Victory in an era of terror will not be achieved by military might alone, Mr. Speaker. Victory will require America to win the argument for the hearts and minds of the next generation in the Arab and Muslim world. I fear that we are presently losing that argument. The ongoing revelations about abuses at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere undermine our ability to maintain the moral high ground and be seen as a beacon of democracy and human rights. I am encouraged that our committee's new oversight subcommittee is investigating abuses that have occurred in our interrogation and detention programs within the intelligence community. This is a serious bipartisan investigation. But I also support a broader public bipartisan inquiry into detention policies across the government so that our efforts to fight the terrorists do not become a moral black eye for America that undermines our security. One area where this legislation can be improved, Mr. Speaker, is in its approach to technical systems. The details of these systems are classified and cannot be discussed openly. But I am concerned that we have made sudden, drastic cuts to certain programs that may lead to a gap in our intelligence capabilities and erode the industrial base needed to develop critical capabilities in the future. I am pleased that the chairman is committed to addressing this problem with me as the bill moves to conference. Overall, Mr. Speaker, this is strong legislation that puts us on the right track to achieve victory in an era of terror. There is more, much more, we must do and we will. The brave men and women of the intelligence community deserve nothing less. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the chairman for yielding to me. Charlie Allen is as close as you can come to a legend in the intelligence community. Before the intelligence reform bill passed last year, he was one of the few senior intelligence officers who could get 15 disparate agencies to function as a community. He did that mainly through sheer force of personality. Our Nation collects intelligence through a variety of means, from spies on the ground to satellites overhead, and everything in between. In his capacity as the assistant director for collection, Charlie got the collectors to understand that they were most effective when they worked together as a team against the hardest targets. He got them to understand that integrated collection strategies yielded the best outcomes. Under Charlie's leadership, the collectors in the intelligence community have scored some truly impressive victories, and it is unfortunate that these cannot be recounted in public. I will just tell you that Charlie's service to the Nation was made clear to me the day he told the committee that he had been with the CIA for nearly 50 years. That is an astounding record, and it is certainly appropriate as we close debate on what I think is one of the best authorization bills ever, that we recognize Charlie's service to our Nation.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and commend him for sponsoring this notion of an independent commission to look at detainee abuses. Mr. Speaker, though I am a strong supporter of this legislation, I think it would be even better if it included language to establish this commission, and so I support the motion to recommit the bill for the purpose of adding the gentleman from California's (Mr. Waxman) amendment. Military historians often talk about the ``fog of war.'' I believe our intelligence professionals operate in a fog of law, a confusing patchwork of treaties, laws, memos and policies. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says that it is Congress' responsibility to establish rules concerning captures on land and water. I hope that we will seize this responsibility. But as Congress studies the policy options going forward, it is vital that we have the facts. Only a bipartisan, independent commission can get to the bottom of what happened among administration policymakers within the military chain of command and out in the field. The steady stream of revelations about Guantanamo and other facilities around the world erode our moral credibility, just as we are trying to win the hearts and minds of the Arab and Muslim world. It is vital to our national security, Mr. Speaker, that we fix this problem so that our detention and interrogation policies get us actionable intelligence without creating a whole new generation of terrorist recruits. Pretending that there is no problem is not a strategy for success. So in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, our committee, on a bipartisan basis, is looking into these issues through our Subcommittee on Oversight. I commend our progress; but in addition, I think the public will have more confidence in what we are doing if we also have an outside, independent commission. In that spirit, I support the Waxman motion to recommit.

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. I want to commend her and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for the enormous work they did outside the intelligence committee. As we were considering the intelligence reform legislation last year, the faces that I saw on a constant basis were theirs and the families. And I often have said that the families were the wind beneath our wings. I would add a couple of Members of Congress to that, too, and I thank them for all they did. I am very pleased that the majority is accepting the amendment. It is a good idea for us to make absolutely clear that the NCTC, the National Counter Terrorism Center, is a vital piece of the reform we enacted last year and that it needs to be fully operational ASAP. To explain further, one of the big mistakes we made leading up to 9/ 11 is everyone now knows our failure to connect the dots. Obviously, having a fusion center designed for this purpose is a very good way to make sure we do not fail to connect the dots the next time. So it took, I would say, the introduction of this amendment to cause the President to nominate a very able fellow, Vice Admiral Redd, to be the director of the NCTC. He did that 2 days after this amendment was presented in the Committee on Rules. And perhaps now that we are accepting it as part of today's debate, the NCTC will become fully operational even before that prison reform bill is enacted. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I strongly support this. I support the team that has brought this to us. And I would note to this body, that bill last year that we worked so hard on gets its real sea legs today as the House takes this necessary step in funding its critical parts and in making clear that we will not accept any efforts to roll back the jurisdiction of the DNI, who is going to be the commander of the tip of the spear in this era of terror.

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, we at the moment have no other speakers on the floor. And I reserve the right to close for our side. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time. Madam Speaker, the last 4 years have witnessed two of the worst intelligence failures in our Nation's history. Congress passed intelligence reform and created the DNI position to give the brave women and men of the intelligence community the tools they need to collect and analyze accurate and timely intelligence. We cannot have any more catastrophic failures where we fail to connect the dots or believe too fervently in the claims of bogus sources. This legislation, the authorization bill we are considering today, is the first funding bill under our new intelligence organization. It is a strong bill that deserves our support. As we said earlier, for the first time we fully funded counterterrorism in the base budget so we can plan CT operations against our enemies. For the first time we have urged the DNI to create multitier security clearances so we can field a diverse group of intelligence officers who speak the languages and understand the cultures of our adversaries. I am proud to say these were two ideas offered by the committee Democrats that gained bipartisan support in our committee. As I have said, there are ways this bill can be improved further. And I look forward to working on this as we move to conference. But this is a bipartisan product that deserves bipartisan support. And before I close, I do want to thank again the hard-working members on both sides of the committee who put so much effort into it day after day, and moreover the hard-working staff on a bipartisan basis. And let me just identify those on the minority side who are sitting on the floor with me today: David Buckley, staff director; Chuck Gault, deputy staff director; Jeremy Bash, general counsel; Mike DeLaney; Larry Hanauer; John Keefe; Pam Moore; Wyndee Parker, special counsel; and Christine York. They make us look good, and I urge passage of this legislation before us. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. (Mr. HOEKSTRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, my home State of California produces many of the platforms and systems that give us the technical edge in intelligence, and I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), my California friend, ranking member of the Technical and Tactical Intelligence Subcommittee of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, I served for 6 years on the Committee on Armed Services and came to admire greatly our next speaker. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), ranking member.

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), ranking member on the Intelligence Policy Subcommittee.

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to the last speaker that I applaud his comments about the need for this new legislation to succeed. It is critical, in my view, to move from a 1947 business model, which is the one we were operating under, to this one. I also would point out to our colleagues, as the last speaker knows, that battlefield intelligence is not included in the DNI construct that we built. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), a recent addition to our committee, who is a very active member of our new Subcommittee on Oversight.

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the last speaker for his generous words and ask how much time remains on each side.

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, I associate myself totally with the comments that our chairman just made. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), our rookie on our side.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) who is ranking member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence, a mouthful that we call HACI. (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, the new news on our committee is that we have stood up an oversight subcommittee. Much discussion has been made about this already today. It is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) who is ranking member of the intelligence oversight subcommittee.

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to comment on the remarks the chairman just made. Madam Speaker, it is not a zero-sum game, it is not a trade-off between what we call HUMINT, that is, human intelligence, which is primarily the use of spies to tell us the plans and intention of the bad guys, and technology. It is a positive-sum game, or we hope it is a positive-sum game, that balances correctly our investments in HUMINT and our investments in technology. I said earlier that my home State of California makes many of the technical platforms that we use effectively to gather intelligence. I agree with our chairman that we should take a clear-eyed look at what works and what does not work and what capabilities we need to defeat present and future threats. But some of us, I would say a majority on the minority side, believe that the weighing, measuring, and finding wanting that has gone on in this bill needs further review, that the balance can be better struck. I look forward to working with the chairman on a better balance as this bill comes to conference, keeping in mind that we want a positive- sum outcome. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a very serious Member of this body, not on our committee.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his service both on the Rules Committee and on the Intelligence Committee, and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) as well for his comments earlier in this debate. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question so that we can have a debate on the Waxman amendment. Yesterday, we had an open rule for the Defense Appropriations Act which funds the intelligence community. I fail to see why we cannot have an open rule for the authorization bill for those same intelligence programs. I also think it is sad that the leadership scheduled consideration of this authorization bill after our vote on the appropriations bill. This makes little sense and erodes our ability to establish clear guidance for how money will be spent. Mr. Speaker, this rule should have made in order all of the amendments that were offered. Only 10 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee. Of those, nine were offered by Democrats, and of those nine, only one was made in order. Each amendment was responsible. Each deserves full consideration on the House floor. Members on both sides of the aisle should have an opportunity to debate the important issues raised by these amendments, but as a result of this unnecessarily restrictive rule, neither Republicans nor Democrats will have that opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight one amendment that the Rules Committee will not let us debate, the Waxman amendment to establish an independent commission on detainee issues. Detentions and interrogations are vital tools. We need those tools. But they must take place according to our laws and our values. To do anything less puts our own troops in harm's way and erodes our moral credibility in the world. Today, our intelligence professionals operate in what I call a ``fog of law,'' a confusing patchwork of laws, treaties, memos and policies. The Intelligence Committee's oversight subcommittee is conducting a serious bipartisan investigation into the practice of renditions and interrogations under the able leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer). But this investigation is largely classified. We also need a public unclassified investigation so that the public can have confidence that our Constitution and our laws are respected. A public bipartisan investigation will help us learn precisely what happened, who should be accountable at senior as well as operational levels, and how to fix the problems. Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record an op-ed from the June 7 Washington Post by civil rights attorney Floyd Abrams, former Representative Bob Barr, and Ambassador Tom Pickering, which called for the creation of an independent commission. They wrote: ``Only with such a commission are we likely to enact the reforms needed to restore our credibility among the nations of the world.'' I agree. Shutting off the lights at Guantanamo will not solve the problem. Only Congress can solve the problem by addressing the policies underlying Guantanamo. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution states that it is Congress's responsibility to make rules concerning captures on land and water, and that is why, in addition to calling for this independent commission, I believe we need bipartisan legislation. The safety of our troops and our moral credibility in the world are on the line. I urge my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule and the previous question.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I thank the gentlewoman for raising this issue. I want to assure her that I understand and support the general principle she has raised, and I believe that we should be mindful of that issue.