Jane Harman

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. I want to explain to this House my request for a re-vote on the Johnson of Texas amendment. Like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), I believe that interrogations within the rule of law are essential to protect American lives. However, clause 7 of his amendment, upon rereading, I think was a bit difficult for many of us. It says, ``the abuses were not part of United States policy,'' and I think that statement is premature until we review all of the documents and get additional testimony on the matter. That is why I requested another vote.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I commend his service to the Congress and to the other body when we were both staffers. And I share his heat. I was standing on this floor just half an hour ago or so saying we all got it wrong. Mentioning the fact that starting in the first Bush administration and continuing in the early part of the Clinton administration, unfortunately, we disinvested in some critical parts of our intelligence and defense because we thought the world was safer. And to see the chairman of this committee, my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), distort the record on the floor of the House is really surprising to me, stunning to me. I do not believe we on this side have done that. I think we have fairly shared across many administrations the mistakes that were made. As my colleague from Florida has pointed out many times, Mr. Chairman, what changed at 9/11 was the audience. Then, finally, there was the political will to act in ways that many of us on a bipartisan basis thought were the correct ways way before 9/11. I commend the gentleman from Florida for thinking they were correct before 9/11. But, sadly, four hours of debate is reaching a very sorry end here. The facts are the facts. The record should be accurate. And we on this side are trying to create an accurate record. And one of the things we have been urging is full funding of counterintelligence in this budget and that counterintelligence, the facts will show, is not fully funded.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I believe that having the CIA Inspector General conduct an impartial independent audit of the intelligence reporting on this matter is a good idea, and I support his amendment. Let me just mention something that I do not believe has come up the debate, and that is that there is a real difference pre-war and post- war. From my review of the sources provided to our committee on the nature of this relationship, I have concluded that pre-war there were contacts but no operational relationship. Post-war is a different story. Post-war there is an operational relationship between terrorists and folks on the ground in Iraq. Saddam Hussein is no longer there, but there is a massive both recruiting and enabling effort in Iraq for terrorists around the world. Iraq has now become fly paper. Let me just suggest to the amendment's sponsor that the results of the audit should be made public. I think that might help eradicate some of the confusion that has been discussed. I think his amendment is a public service, and I support it.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, though I will not object, I want to be sure that the language that has not been read is consistent with the language I just reviewed.

Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I will control the time on this side.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and commend him for this amendment and rise in support. I do agree with Chairman Goss that our committee is already studying these issues. I also agree with Chairman Goss that these are touchy issues because we certainly want to communicate our strong support for the Government of Pakistan which has, after all, been an ally of ours in this very, very difficult global war on terror and which continues to take major risks on our behalf. So, yes, that is true. On the other hand, I believe it is important to run to ground key questions, including the breadth and scope of the proliferation headed by A.Q. Khan, the number of customers, the degree of cooperation with other rogue states, and whether at any level there was complicity of the Pakistani Government. These are tough questions, and I think that what is requested in this amendment, which is a report on these questions, will certainly burden the agencies. Yes, it will. On the other hand, it will give us some answers that we need. On balance, I think it is commendable that we focus additional attention on the damage done with respect to proliferation around the world by A.Q. Khan and his network and we recognize that there is a place, I think the place is now, in our consideration of these issues to get the clear answers we deserve. I support this amendment.

Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Ms. HARMAN. Well, reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed in that answer only because I think there is plenty of blame to go around over three or four administrations and findings that made that clear, I think, would be more helpful. Let me reiterate my strong view, and the view of everyone that I can imagine on our side, that we support the men and women of the intelligence community. That is something I have said over and over and over again in our committee briefings, hearings, and travels. Everywhere we go around the globe, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and I and others have traveled to places like Pyongyang, and Baghdad and Kabul and Libya and elsewhere. We have always thanked the men and women of the intelligence community with whom we have met. I wish that this would have been drafted on a bipartisan basis with what we would view as a fairer statement of findings over a longer period of time. I think that that would do more honor to the capable men and women who are now in harm's way. So I regrettably urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as a strong supporter of congressional oversight, I believe that information should be readily available to those congressional committees of jurisdiction conducting investigations, including investigations of the U.N. oil-for-food program. Therefore, I am happy to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut and feel it is very constructive. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), a member of our committee.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of our committee.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I have stated earlier and others on our side have stated, we support this amendment. We think congressional oversight matters. Committees can make a big difference, and on a bipartisan basis we think this amendment should be supported by the whole House. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do not think we have any further speakers on this amendment, but I would like to enter into a dialogue with the amendment's sponsor to suggest to him that we might agree by unanimous consent that the sense of Congress in his resolution be the entire resolution. We strike the findings, because our side feels that they are not complete and that some of them may be misleading. And that, as I said, on a bipartisan basis we all were wrong in 1990 when the wall came down and we expected a more peaceful world. Would the gentleman be amenable to striking the findings and having his resolution be the Sense of Congress, as he has drafted it, which I would predict would be adopted unanimously?

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I see no additional speakers on our side. I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I will control the time on our side.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to agree with the comments of the last speaker and commend his service as part of the Central Intelligence Agency. He brings great expertise to this House, and I as one Member value it enormously. He may not know that the Bremer Commission on which I served recommended that the Deutch Guidelines not apply in the case of recruitment of terrorist spies. We, too, found that, though well- intended, and I believe they were well-intended, those guidelines inhibited the aggressive recruitment of people who had the qualifications to penetrate the worst terrorist organizations, which we need them to do. Yes, these are unsavory characters, and yes, we need them, provided that they are reasonably vetted so that we know that they are reliable, but nonetheless, yes, we need them. I do not want to be heard to be ambivalent about this at all. A few years ago, our committee found that those guidelines had not been rescinded; and on a bipartisan basis, we directed that the DCI rescind them and replace them, and that was done at our direction. That was one of our impressive bipartisan actions, and so I would just point out that, while the language of this amendment commending our people in the field who take risk on our behalf is excellent, the problem we are having on this side is with the findings that very narrowly focus on a very few years of history. The history is longer, and let me say in the spirit of bipartisanship that we all got it wrong after the Cold War. We all thought the world would be more peaceful. We all thought there would be a peace dividend. That is why the 41st President, President Bush, began to draw down both the Defense and Intelligence budgets, anticipating a more peaceful world, which obviously did not come to pass. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Texas that I appreciate his comments welcoming my comments. That, again, is in the spirit of bipartisanship. We all do better when we are bipartisan. I would just also make a comment to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). I certainly agree that a lot of material is in our committee spaces, but we will consider an amendment later this afternoon on this subject of the committee's ability to oversee the detainee problem. Some of us remain skeptical that our committee has gotten all the material we need and certainly skeptical that we have gotten adequate candid testimony from administration officials. I would also point out to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) that while we were in Baghdad, we should have been told about some issues directly relevant to our jurisdiction, such as this issue of ghosting of detainees as described by General Taguba in his report, and that is the placing of detainees without revealing their numbers or their identity in prisons so that, as I understand it, the International Red Cross and other outside observers would not be aware of their existence. This is a serious issue directly relevant to our jurisdiction. I believe that it was known to those we met with in Baghdad and they should have informed us; at least that is my personal opinion. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), another member of our committee to comment on the Johnson amendment.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on our side?

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thought our Sicily stop was outstanding, which is why I brought it up. But I think that the improvements made to this amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) are noteworthy. What he did, as I understand it, was to insert a bit of the history here, the role of sanctions initiated by President Reagan, the role of international legal negotiations to get Libya to renounce terrorism and turn over terrorism suspects to international courts, and the role of diplomacy in previous administrations and by the British and others before the beginning of this administration. Though this administration did play a role, and I commend it, in President Qadhafi's stunning decision to do the right thing, that should be reflected, and is, in this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I will put two very important articles on this subject in the Record. One is by Dr. Flynt Leverett entitled ``Why Libya Gave Up the Bomb'' from the January 23, 2004, New York Times; and the second is a Middle East Institute Policy Brief by two former assistant Secretaries of State and former ambassadors, Martin Indyk and Edward S. Walker entitled ``What Does Libya's Disarmament Teach About Rogue States?'' dated April 7, 2004. Finally, let me make two other points. We have seen in recent days troubling allegations that Colonel Qadhafi was himself involved in ordering assassinations of Saudi leaders. These are, of course, press reports. But these stories remind us that the success of our policies toward Libya remain an open question, and I am sure the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) agrees with me that we need to be clear-eyed and diligent to make certain that these promises by Colonel Qadhafi are kept, and that in other respects, he does not convert to any of his old habits.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I will control the time on our side.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I will support the amendment, though I wish it had included a clear statement about the importance of U.S. obligations to adhere to international laws, conventions and treatises to prevent torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of human beings. Mr. Chairman, one of the most troubling aspects of this whole detainee issue, besides the absolutely reprehensible abuse of prisoners, is the all-out assault on the rule of law that is clearly revealed in legal memos that seem to justify abuse and even torture of detainees. None of us is naive here, and as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I strongly believe in the importance of interrogations and understand that interrogations can yield information that protect thousands or millions of Americans. We have to interrogate prisoners, but over the many years of our country's history, we have always done those interrogations consistent with the rule of law, and only recently have some very troubling memoranda surfaced at the highest levels of the Justice Department and the Defense Department that raise questions and that actually assert that the President of the United States in his role as commander in chief could actually be above the law. I thought, Mr. Chairman, that we had defeated that idea at Runnymede centuries and centuries ago and that our country was built on a foundation of the rule of law, and I worry, Mr. Chairman, that if we do not observe the rule of law, not only do we undercut our moral authority, but we endanger our troops who might be treated just the way some of our people are treating other troops. Now, let me add quickly that the beheading of Americans and other nationals is absolutely outrageous, and nowhere do I think that behavior is consistent with even rational or humane behavior. It is abhorrent and appalling, and I strongly condemn it. But in conclusion, I think it is important that we support this amendment, but I think it is also important that as we do support this amendment, we think about the fact that the rule of law must always apply as we treat detainees and proceed with the important work of interrogations. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if I could just respond to the gentleman, and I would be happy to yield again if I have any more time if he wants to respond to what I have to say, I appreciate that comment, but mine is a bit different. I understand that we may not fully know what we need. That is why we have supplementals. But in this case we do fully know what we need. We know what the agencies in the intelligence community need for counterterrorism because they have told us, and the amendments we wish had been in order had an unclassified piece, which basically says we should fully fund counterterrorism, and a classified piece, where we carefully allocated across the intelligence community all the money these agencies have told us they need. They told us it is hard to plan for their year without knowing for sure that they will get money. And the last point I want to make to the gentleman, and I do appreciate what he is saying, is that I do not think we will pass another supplemental until sometime after the first quarter of next year. We will be gearing up in a new Congress, and if we pass the supplemental in next March or April, as I pointed out in my earlier remarks, we may have a gap in funding counterterrorism just at the time when we have the presidential inauguration and the Super Bowl, and those are huge events were maximum counterterrorism efforts are needed.