Jane Harman

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am supportive of the bill.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I welcome the support for this bill from the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and I would like our colleagues to know as one conferee, we all support the chain of command. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), a conferee, and the ranking member on the House Committee on Armed Services, a wonderful committee on which I served for 6 years.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who heads our Democratic Caucus, a wonderful and valued colleague on this issue, and a third of our Democratic conferees. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, clearly many in this House feel strongly. I hope most of us will vote for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a senior member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, obviously we do not all agree on the best direction in which to go. It is clear from this debate that Members on our side and Members on the other side of the aisle have some strong feelings against the carefully crafted compromise. But carefully crafted it was. I can assure Members that 10 weeks and thousands of hours by Members and staff went into the language of this conference report. There were fights about almost every issue. We worked it out as best we could. We worked it out on a bipartisan basis, and as I said at the beginning of this debate, I cannot thank enough Senators Collins and Lieberman and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) for their collaboration, talent, dedication and true grit. This would not have happened without them. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of conversation about the House bill and what was left out of the conference report. I would point out to colleagues that the vote in the House was an extremely close vote. To remind, there was an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). The vote on that amendment in the nature of a substitute was 203-213; 194 Democrats, 8 Republicans, and 1 Independent supported the Menendez substitute, which was essentially the Senate version of the bill. That means that 96 Members of the other body, all but 2 who voted, and 203 Members of this body, 300 Members, supported essentially the Senate version of the bill. We could look at that as an overwhelming vote for the Senate language. I certainly look at it that way, and the 9/11 Commission said and the White House said in many respects that the Senate language was much closer to what they intended. My point in bringing this up is in reaching the compromise that we are voting on now, we need to understand how much was given up on both sides. Clearly the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and those who support his position think a lot was given up on his side. Some of the language that passed in H.R. 10, very controversial language, was given up, to be sure. But a lot of the language in the Senate version of the bill was also given up: such as the declassified top line; such as a number of the powers that have been talked about for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board; such as full control over reprogramming of personnel and budget. A lot of those issues were given up in the effort to reach a carefully balanced, bipartisan, bicameral compromise. That is what we are voting on today. I would just tell all Members that I believe it is not only the best we could do, but it is very good. Just to remind, we do address immigration, we do increase border protection, we do include Federal standards for State-issued drivers' licenses, and we do do something which has not been mentioned, which is direct TSA to develop within 6 months new standards for ID documents for boarding airplanes. TSA is directed in this bill to handle what we all agree is a problem. We do not want terrorists to use fraudulent documents or documents based on expired visas to board airplanes, and we correct that problem in this bill. We also address the chain of command, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has pointed out. We did not address the border fence issue, but I am hopeful that without waiving environmental protections, those of us who care about it in California will figure out a right and fair solution. Finally, let me point out, as many Members have, that this bill is supported by the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, the 9/11 Commission, most of the 9/11 families, most of the conferees, and overwhelming majorities on a bipartisan basis in each House. I urge its adoption. It is the right thing to do. It honors the 9/11 families, and it makes a point about the 63rd anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attacks. We know how to fix these problems. We will do it tonight. I urge adoption of the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I would point out to the gentleman and to this body that I signed the conference report, but that I think it would be worthwhile to make several points, although the time is late, including the fact that it gives the director of CIA flexible authority to pay employees under non-Federal cover, which is more and more important in targeting the post-9/11 security threats of terrorism and the spread of WMD. It establishes a chief information technology manager to oversee enterprise, architecture, procurement and research and development. It requires the DCI to submit an assessment on countries or regions that are terrorist sanctuaries. It contains a number of good language provisions. But it does not contain something that many of us feel is absolutely critical and that we hope will be forwarded by this administration for the 2006 budget, and that is full funding of counterterrorism in the base budget. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, although I do not presently intend to object, I ask the gentleman to explain his unanimous consent request.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss three subjects, the first of which is this amendment. Although I listened carefully to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). I think many of the points he makes are valid, and I agree with him that we should not be coddling terrorists, but I think this amendment is ill timed and needs further consideration by this House. The gentleman has said that he is not participating in an effort to expand the PATRIOT Act, but these ideas have been circulated in a package called PATRIOT Act II. My view of the PATRIOT Act, which I supported, is that next year is the right time to consider how to expand or contract it. I am a cosponsor of the SAFE Act, which would delete some provisions of the PATRIOT Act that are egregious, but I have an open mind in looking at some features of the PATRIOT Act which might be fine-tuned to work more effectively. So for that reason, I oppose this amendment. I also will oppose the Hostettler amendment, which will be offered in a few minutes. I think it replaces the worst features of H.R. 10 with some other bad features. Certainly, the outsourcing of terrorists, as some of us have called it, which some Members of the majority including the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), agree would violate U.S. law and the International Convention on Torture, is a terrible idea. But there are other features of the Hostettler amendment that make asylum much harder to get, and in ways that have nothing whatsoever to do with finding and prosecuting terrorists, punish innocent immigrants. That is not the purpose of the debate today. Finally, I want to comment on the en bloc amendment which was just offered and agreed to. I think it is a very good amendment, and the features of it I want to talk about are the Barton amendment, and the Fossella amendment, both of which have to do with interoperable communications. We have done almost nothing since 9/11 effectively to deal with the failure to have communications equipment and adequate bandwidth with which to communicate, which was a major problem in New York and a major problem at the Pentagon. This administration is not even funding initiatives in this fiscal year for interoperable communications, claiming there is enough money in the pipeline. The right answer is to free up some dedicated bandwidth for emergency communications. There is a pending bill called the HERO Act, introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and me, which has been sadly withering on the vine for a year and a half, opposed by the broadcasters. These two amendments will help with multiyear funding, which we need for ports as well as interoperable communications, and will help convey the sense of the Congress that makes it clear we have to free up this bandwidth so that our first responders have the tools that they need. So as we proceed this morning, Mr. Chairman, I hope we are all paying close attention to amendments. Some are good, some are less good. I would like to say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), however, that I think he is an extremely careful legislator and a very good lawyer, and I hope that next year we can work together to craft PATRIOT Act amendments both to eliminate provisions that do not work and to enhance provisions that do work that will keep America safe, find the bad guys, and protect our civil liberties and our constitution.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time to say how proud New Yorkers, two of whom are my children, are of her leadership and her service to New York City. This has been a long and difficult debate. Last night, in my view, was not our finest hour in this House, and the re-vote on the Smith amendment just moments ago was an unnecessary rebuke to a bipartisan group who tried to make this bill better. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this motion to recommit, not to polarize us, but to unite us. The goal is to make us safer; and to do so, we need to change the way our intelligence community is organized. Good people who try their best to protect us need better tools. A good organization cannot assure success, but a bad organization makes success much more difficult. Every Republican Senator voted for this bill, and eight Republicans voted for it in the House last night. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this motion to recommit.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, instead of passing one strong bill to make our country safer, the House bill has two divergent parts: the first part is the core bill, which includes a watered-down version of the intelligence reform provisions in the 9/11 Commission report. The second part is a campaign bill, which has some useful features, but also contains partisan controversial provisions, such as expanded deportation, unlimited detention, unnecessary environmental waivers, and unchecked databases designed to paint Democrats as weak on terrorism in the weeks before an election. Several of these egregious provisions were eliminated on the House floor, but the re-vote on the Smith amendment persuaded me that the bill's sponsors were not seeking common ground, but were making 30- second attack ads. I voted in committee to report the bill in order to move the process forward, and I will work my heart out in conference to strengthen the intelligence reform provisions and conform the other provisions to what the 9/11 Commission recommended. Let me focus on what strengthening the intelligence provisions means. Our first priority in the conference report should be to strengthen the National Intelligence Director, called the NID. I agree with the statement of administration policy on H.R. 10 that ``H.R. 10 does not provide the NID sufficient authorities to manage the intelligence community effectively.'' H.R. 10's budget authorities are weaker than S. 2845; and, stunningly, they are weaker than current statutes and executive orders which allow for the transfer and reprogramming of funds by the Director of Central Intelligence. Under H.R. 10, money is simply passed through the NID to the various intelligence agencies. Unless the NID has the power to manage and control the budgets of these agencies, he or she will not be able to integrate our intelligence capabilities effectively. Moreover, the President is not the NID's only customer. We must ensure that the NID addresses the needs of the Departments of Defense, State, Homeland Security, and the war fighters when budgets are built and executed. Our efforts must not lead to the dismemberment of the National Foreign Intelligence Program, the NFIP, or we will end up with less integration than we presently have. To be crystal clear, Mr. Speaker, neither bill, let me underscore this, neither bill includes the budgets for tactical intelligence. And no one is recommending that they be included. To repeat: no one has recommended that the budgets of our tactical intelligence agencies be included in the structure we are building under this legislation. The NID also needs greater personnel management authorities. S. 2845 provides this authority, but H.R. 10 does not. The leaders of the intelligence community must believe they work for the NID in addition to their Department Secretaries. Consultation on appointments, which is what H.R. 10 includes, is insufficient. The NID must at least have the power to concur in key appointments. To enable the NID to create a joint culture, he or she must also be able to transfer people to centers and other multidisciplinary teams. Congress solved the problem of a weak Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 20 years ago by mandating joint assignments for promotion and creating a joint career track. The same must be done for the NID. After all, the NID is our attempt to create Goldwater-Nichols jointness for the intelligence community, just as we have done for the military. Third, the director of the NCTC, the National Counterterrorism Center, must have significant stature. Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation of the NCTC director is critical to give that post the stature and accountability that it requires. The President and the Senate overwhelmingly support this. Fourth, the conference report should include the provision of S. 2845 to create a trusted information-sharing network so government agencies can connect the dots about the terrorists. Simply declaring the need, as H.R. 10 does, is woefully insufficient. And finally, it is imperative to develop mechanisms to ensure that actions of the NID and NCTC do not encroach upon our civil liberties. We must create an independent privacy and civil liberties board, which was supported on a bipartisan basis in the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and then stripped in the Committee on Rules, recommended by the 9/11 Commission and included in S. 2845. These intelligence provisions began here in the House with H.R. 4104, but they stalled here because our leadership pursued a partisan path and because the President's endorsement of S. 2845 was not followed up with constructive effort in the House. We know how to do this right, Mr. Speaker, and we must. We can never replace the loved ones we lost on September 11, but we can honor them and the bravery of those who came to their rescue by uniting in this conference in the next several weeks to enact real reform. I pledge to do my part.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. I am not, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment's sponsor knows a lot about intelligence, having served as staff director for the Intelligence Committee in the other body under the late great Senator Goldwater, author of Goldwater- Nichols, the law that prescribes jointness in the military just like the approach some of us want to take to the intelligence community. The gentleman is rightly a supporter of greater use of open sources, and I would agree with him that our entire intelligence community could benefit by greater use of open sources. I would just point out that some of the photos he showed us were very interesting, and to my mind, reveal a lot more information than the top line of the intelligence budget. But be that as it may, his amendment, I think, is a sensible idea, if only to draw more attention to the importance that open sources can provide. This is a sense of the Congress, so for those who think that centers should only be mission oriented, it is only a sense of the Congress that we should pay more attention to open sources. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would comment further only this, that I regret the tone of the debate on the last amendment. It troubles me a lot. I think everyone sitting here really cares that we get it right about intelligence reorganization. Many of us have studied it for years. I wish the House had taken the lead on the subject months and months ago, because we had very good information on the problems and very good legislation drafted. But we stalled out, and the other body filled the vacuum and we are where we are. 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 to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request. (Mr. OBEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, a number of speakers have commented on the courage and sacrifice of intelligence community personnel who work in the shadows in austere lands. As we debate this bill, their lives are at risk and we owe them and their families our heartfelt thanks and total support. We also owe them better tools, including an organization that equips them to meet 21st-century threats. We are using a 1947 business model designed to defeat an enemy that no longer exists. It is time, Mr. Chairman, way past time for change. And this debate needs to focus on what change will truly help our intelligence community transition to the capabilities necessary to meet 21st-century threats. When you think about that, and you compare H.R. 10 to the Menendez substitute, a substitute which is battle-tested, which passed the other body 96 to 2 just last night with every single Republican voting for it, there is absolutely no contest. The Menendez substitute is much stronger, much better, and much more bipartisan than H.R. 10. The accusations made against the Menendez substitute can all be rebutted, and we will do that tonight. It does a better job of controlling our borders. It does a better job of protecting the civil liberties of Americans. It does a better job of targeting terrorists while protecting the rights of innocent immigrants. I urge strong support for the Menendez substitute and would hope that H.R. 10 will be viewed as the partisan offering that it sadly is.

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) has raised concerns about providing information to the enemy by declassifying the top line of the budget. In the 9/11 Commission report it says, ``When even aggregate categorical numbers remain hidden, it is hard to judge priorities and foster accountability. The top line figure by itself provides little insight into U.S. intelligence sources and methods.'' It was passed in the other body 55 to 37, overwhelmingly supported by Republican Senators.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close the debate. Mr. Chairman, previous speakers have detailed the strength of the Collins-Lieberman-McCain bill and the weaknesses of H.R. 10, and they have done an excellent job. I would like to close by reminding everyone what is at stake. We have had multiple intelligence failures over the last 3 years with catastrophic consequences. We failed to anticipate and stop the attacks of September 11. Then our intelligence agencies failed to provide an accurate assessment of Iraq's weapons programs as was conclusively established with the release of the Duelfer Report. And we failed to predict the post-war looting and the strength of the post-war insurgency in Iraq. The President seems to be in denial. He has not even acknowledged the existence of the Duelfer Report. But we cannot afford to be in denial. The terrorists are preparing their attacks right now. We need to act not as Democrats and not as Republicans, but as Americans. A spokesman for the Speaker stated last week that the purpose of this exercise is to ``spank Democrats.'' I think the purpose of this exercise is to prevent, deter, and disrupt the next terrorist attack with the best intelligence we can field. I think the purpose of this exercise is to make America safer. I think the American people agree with me, and I urge us to adopt the bipartisan Menendez substitute. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), a member of our committee.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), a member of our committee.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the last speaker and welcome him to the committee. It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), who is ranking member on one of our subcommittees, a new member of our committee, and my California sister.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the new chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for the comments he just made, not just about me and the members of the minority but about our staff. We work hard, and we welcome the fact that the winds of bipartisanship are again blowing through our committee. It is a good thing for America. Mr. Chairman, I hail from California, the land of earthquakes. Yesterday, Washington experienced two near simultaneous earthquakes. In California, we would call that ``the big one.'' The first was the Duelfer report, which conclusively established that we invaded Iraq based on wrong intelligence. Four ancient chemical warheads, one vial of Botox and a centrifuge hidden under a rose bush in 1991 did not and do not constitute an imminent threat. The second earthquake was last evening's spectacular 96-to-2 victory of the Collins-Lieberman-McCain legislation, S. 2845, implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Kudos to Senators Collins and Lieberman, amazing legislators who presided over 2 days of markup and withstood votes on dozens of floor amendments over 6 days to produce an excellent bipartisan bill. In contrast, Mr. Chairman, although this House was first to identify our intelligence gaps and could have played the leadership role in fixing them, we are playing catch-up. More than a year ago, former Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Porter Goss and I sent a letter to George Tenet detailing our preliminary findings that ``there were significant deficiencies'' in our intelligence about Iraq's WMD capabilities and that the intelligence community's ``judgments were based on too many uncertainties.'' Last April, as we heard from our chairman, all nine Democrats on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence introduced H.R. 4104 to provide ``Goldwater/Nichols''-style jointness for the intelligence community. Our bill put a dozen intelligence agencies with different rules, cultures and databases under one unified commander for the entire community just the way we put our military services under unified command. We are told our bill formed the basis for many of the 9/11 Commission recommendations on intelligence reform, including the creation of the National Intelligence Director. Mr. Chairman, the concepts we will debate today were developed from a House bill. It started here, and it stalled here when the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence majority took no action to mark up our bill. It remains stalled, Mr. Chairman, because the Republican leadership insists on pursuing a highly partisan process. Fortunately, the Menendez substitute has been made in order, and I urge its adoption. S. 2845, the Collins-Lieberman-McCain bill, which would replace H.R. 10 if the Menendez amendment is adopted, provides full budget execution authority to the National Intelligence Director. In contrast, H.R. 10 creates an ``N-I-D'' but it is a ``Neutered Intelligence Director,'' passing funding through the NID without giving the NID adequate control. S. 2845 provides for a National Counterterrorism Center with real power to integrate our counterterrorist operations. H.R. 10 reduces the NCTC's power. S. 2845 provides for an independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Board. H.R. 10 does not. S. 2845 follows the excellent recommendations of the nonpartisan Markle Foundation and creates a trusted Information Sharing Network so that government agencies can connect the dots about the terrorists but not infringe on the civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. H.R. 10 has no such provision. S. 2845 allows the public to see the overall amount we spend on intelligence by declassifying the top line, something we did in 1997 and 1998 without jeopardizing national security. H.R. 10 insists on unnecessary secrecy. In sum, Mr. Chairman, we are debating the wrong bill. In case anyone missed it, the terrorists did not check our party labels before they attacked us, and they certainly will not care whether we are Democrats or Republicans when they try to attack us again. Mr. Chairman, the American people want us to defend our country, not our turf. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would point out to my friend the last speaker that both in Collins-Lieberman and H.R. 10, the NID is not part of the White House, the Executive Office of the President. It is separate. I agree with his comments on that. As far as the budget of the NID is concerned, tactical intelligence is totally exempted. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. (Ms. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to another committee member, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).