Jane Harman

Ms. HARMAN

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

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

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, 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

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

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, September 13 was an important date for Congress. It marked the expiration of the decade-old Assault Weapons Ban. Police Chiefs across the country strongly encouraged the extension of this ban. President Bush even announced he would sign an extension if Congress presented him with the opportunity. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership did not deem the ban fit for a vote. Instead, Congress squanders valuable time voting on matters that either have no bearing on the real work at hand or are designed as divisive wedge issues. Just yesterday the House voted to repeal the District of Columbia's 28-year-old assault weapons ban and to prohibit the DC Government from enacting such laws in the future. That was yesterday, Mr. Speaker. Today, the House, in another profile in courage, will devote valuable time to one of the most divisive of wedge issues--a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Are these the most pressing issues of the day for Congress? For the American people? Of course not. Al Qaeda will not stop at the borders of Washington, DC, in fear of our newly armed city, but tourists and other visitors might. And DC residents, Members of Congress and their families will be at greater risk. Nor will our ports, railways, airports, and other critical infrastructure be more secure because we waste time on what is certain to be a failed Federal effort to ban gay marriage. States have long regulated marriage and I do not believe that America has suffered from this practice. I believe State legislatures and courts are the proper arbiters of questions of community values. On this issue there is bipartisan agreement. Indeed, four of the featured speakers at the recent Republican convention oppose this amendment, including Vice President Cheney and California Governor Schwarzenegger. We have traditionally amended the Constitution to grant a broader range of rights to Americans. Why, in the 21st century, are we breaking from this 200-year-old tradition? In my view, the Constitution should be amended rarely, dispassionately, and only in the interest of codifying or expanding rights and liberties. This proposed amendment fails to meet that test, is divisive, and distracts from more urgent priorities. If America is hit by terrorists again, I fear that history will look back at us with a scathing and sorrowful eye. There will be anger at our misplaced priorities, and sadness that we fell victim to the passions of those whose vision for America's future is clouded by fear and intolerance. I oppose H.J. Res. 106 and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose it. We need to put this shameful vote behind us and focus on problems that all Americans agree need to be addressed, such as jobs, health care and, most of all, national security.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, have we become unhinged in this House? The business that most of us are engaged in all day today and the business that we will be engaged in all next week is trying to pass responsible reforms to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, recommendations intended to make us safer. While we do this, hopefully on a bipartisan basis, we are debating today a wedge issue designed to make the people who live in the District of Columbia, the Members of Congress, and our families less safe. Let us understand what we are talking about here. I am reading from the description of this bill. We are repealing the ban on semiautomatic weapons, we are eliminating criminal penalties for possessing an unregistered firearm, and we are amending Federal law to eliminate criminal penalties for carrying a pistol whether loaded or unloaded. This is incredible, Mr. Speaker. I am astonished that this House would even spend 2 seconds on this issue. Maybe this is good rhetoric in somebody's campaign, but it is bad policy for the United States of America. Shame on this House for wasting time on this bill. I strongly oppose it.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, in July of 1996, I stood on the House Floor and spoke in opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act. Eight years later, here I am again, standing in opposition to another attempt to divide this nation in an election year and ostracize some of our citizens. Only this time, we're going even further. This time, we are considering legislation that would, for the first time in our Nation's history, seek to exclude a specific group of people from access to the federal court system. The fact that we are having this debate at this time is as shameful as the debate itself. Our Nation faces many pressing and critical problems: the size of the Federal deficit and its effect on our international competitiveness; threats from rogue nations and terrorists; and an intelligence system that is in desperate need of repair, to name a few. Yet, rather than focusing our energy on protecting our citizens, Congress is debating of a resolution that would take away the rights of some Americans. There are three really good reasons to vote against H.R. 3313. It's unconstitutional, it discriminates against some Americans, and, for those of you who supported DOMA, it will muddle the definition of marriage and undermine the stated intent of DOMA. Eight years ago, I warned that the Defense of Marriage Act was an unconstitutional solution in search of a problem. With the measure we are considering today, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have out-done themselves. H.R. 3313 is the mother of all unconstitutional legislation. The bill strips the U.S. Supreme Court's original jurisdiction over cases where a state is a party in a DOMA dispute. Original jurisdiction is conferred on the Supreme Court by the Constitution, not by Congress. Second, this bill is overtly discriminatory. If it were enacted into law, Congress would, for the first time in U.S. history, block a specific group of Americans--same-sex couples and their children--from having full access to the federal court system. It is unconscionable that we would even consider legislation to deny ANY American the right to seek justice through our federal court system. Finally, we were told that the intent of DOMA was to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Now we are considering legislation that would make each of the 50 state supreme courts the final authority on the constitutionality of DOMA. This will create a patchwork of state laws on the recognition of marriage, and muddle its definition. Those who support this bill can no longer hide behind the states' rights or the marriage preservation argument. This measure reveals the clear intent of its drafters--to deny certain individuals equal treatment under the law. I urge my colleagues to stand up and reject this divisive, untimely, and likely unconstitutional bill.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, in July of 1996, I stood on the House Floor and spoke in opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act. Eight years later, here I am again, standing in opposition to another attempt to divide this nation in an election year and ostracize some of our citizens. Only this time, we're going even further. This time, we are considering legislation that would, for the first time in our Nation's history, seek to exclude a specific group of people from access to the federal court system. The fact that we are having this debate at this time is as shameful as the debate itself. Our Nation faces many pressing and critical problems: the size of the Federal deficit and its effect on our international competitiveness; threats from rogue nations and terrorists; and an intelligence system that is in desperate need of repair, to name a few. Yet, rather than focusing our energy on protecting our citizens, Congress is debating of a resolution that would take away the rights of some Americans. There are three really good reasons to vote against H.R. 3313. It's unconstitutional, it discriminates against some Americans, and, for those of you who supported DOMA, it will muddle the definition of marriage and undermine the stated intent of DOMA. Eight years ago, I warned that the Defense of Marriage Act was an unconstitutional solution in search of a problem. With the measure we are considering today, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have out-done themselves. H.R. 3313 is the mother of all unconstitutional legislation. The bill strips the U.S. Supreme Court's original jurisdiction over cases where a state is a party in a DOMA dispute. Original jurisdiction is conferred on the Supreme Court by the Constitution, not by Congress. Second, this bill is overtly discriminatory. If it were enacted into law, Congress would, for the first time in U.S. history, block a specific group of Americans--same sex couples and their children--from having full access to the federal court system. It is unconscionable that we would even consider legislation to deny ANY American the right to seek justice through our federal court system. Finally, we were told that the intent of DOMA was to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Now we are considering legislation that would make each of the 50 state supreme courts the final authority on the constitutionality of DOMA. This will create a patchwork of state laws on the recognition of marriage, and muddle its definition. Those who support this bill can no longer hide behind the states' rights or the marriage preservation arguments. This measure reveals the clear intent of its drafters--to deny certain individuals equal treatment under the law. I urge my colleagues to stand up and reject this divisive, untimely, and likely unconstitutional bill. Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act. You know it's sad that we're even having this debate. However we are being forced to. Marriage and the American family are under attack by activist groups and they're using wayward judges to chip away at this sacred institution. For the sake of our country, Congress must respond. This bill would prevent federal courts from forcing states like Texas to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in another state. Well in Texas, the people have spoken. We have a Defense of Marriage Act on the books. The lone star state only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman, regardless of what other states might do. However, in light of recent events in Massachusetts and elsewhere, it has become necessary to ensure that the will of the people of Texas isn't circumvented by some unelected judge. And one of the remedies to abuses by federal judges lies in Congress' authority to limit federal court jurisdiction. Congress shouldn't be afraid to properly exercise checks and balances provided for in the Constitution. It is our responsibility to prevent overreaching by the courts. We've got to reign in these zealous judges who think they can legislate. Back home we have a popular slogan, ``Don't mess with Texas.'' Well I've got one for this debate, ``Don't mess with marriage!''

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to celebrate today the 100th anniversary of the Wilmington Chamber of Commerce. Wilmington is known, thanks to our local chamber, as the ``Heart of the Harbor,'' and is our nation's gateway to the Pacific and beyond. The business members of the Wilmington Chamber of Commerce serve one of our country's most vital economic engines, the Port of Los Angeles. The Wilmington Chamber of Commerce enhances the local business environment and helps to improve the quality of life in our community. The chamber's work builds on a long and auspicious history for the local community. When Phineas Banning founded Wilmington in 1858, he could hardly have imagined the impact that this small community would eventually come to have on the rest of the world. The second post office in Los Angeles County was opened here, and Wilmington was the lifeline to 215 army posts scattered throughout Arizona and New Mexico during the Civil War. Wilmington was no less important during the Second World War, when Navy ships were built on Terminal Island and contributed to winning the war in the Pacific. Mr. Speaker, I commend the Wilmington Chamber of Commerce on 100 years of remarkable service to the Wilmington community and the nation. I wish the Wilmington business community many more years of success.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, although I have expressed serious concerns about our government's ability to search library and book store records, I do not believe that the Sanders amendment is the proper vehicle for addressing this concern. I will reluctantly oppose it. The PATRIOT Act is a flawed law. It was passed just 7 weeks after September 11, 2001, without meaningful debate about how its new, wide- ranging powers would impact civil liberties. The Act contains some important provisions, such as modernizing law enforcement tools. But it also contains some highly problematic provisions, such as those that potentially give law enforcement officials a license to go on fishing expeditions for personal information unrelated to terrorism. I believe we must carefully review the PATRIOT Act when it comes up for reauthorization next year. Congress should decide which provisions are necessary to win the war on terrorism, and which are unnecessarily harmful to civil liberties. This process should not be done ``on the fly'' in the middle of an election year, before we have an opportunity to understand the Act's full ramifications. That is why I also oppose any effort to make permanent the PATRIOT Act. We adopted this bill in a rush. We wisely included sunset provisions that kick-in after sufficient time has passed to allow us to carefully assess the effectiveness of the provisions and their impact on civil liberties. Let's not rush to make permanent any of the provisions without the careful review we initially envisioned. The responsible course of action is to revise the PATRIOT Act after we understand how best to improve it.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I support the Goss amendment to restore the level of funding requested for NDIC, the National Drug Intelligence Center. I was concerned to learn that these funds had been cut, as have others for key satellite programs, and I am pleased that the chairman has now decided to restore the level of funding the Center needs to carry out its important counternarcotics mission. Hopefully we will address other shortfalls that some on our side have identified in the conference. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make an additional comment about a subject the chairman raised at the end of general debate, and that was when he called additional budget authority monopoly money. I certainly share his view that we should appropriate the funds that we authorize. That is why this side wants to authorize additional funds and then hopefully to get them appropriated. I have spoken to the highest levels of this administration about my keen view that the amount of money to fully fund counterterrorism for fiscal year 2005 is not so great. It is not a big budget buster, certainly not as big as many other requests made by this administration. I see the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) in the room, for whom I have high regard. It would be my hope that sometime soon, even perhaps in the defense appropriations bill that comes out of conference, we will increase the funding for counterterrorism for fiscal year 2005. Mr. Chairman, I support the Goss amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, it has our support.

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

Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York, the sponsor of the amendment.

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

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.

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

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I want to assure her that I understand and fully support the general principle reflected in her point and appreciate her intention in raising this issue. I also want to assure the gentlewoman that, as this bill moves forward, we will be mindful of the issue and will try to be helpful.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I commend the last speaker for his sincere efforts at bipartisanship. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), our rookie on the committee.

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