Jane Harman

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. I appreciate it that you mentioned bipartisanship and mentioned our committee. I had not been planning to speak during this debate. I have great admiration for the bipartisan sponsors of this amendment. I also agree with their point, which is that the total program must comply fully with FISA. But my view is, as the chairman has stated, that we should deal with this issue in the legislative committee. And the reason we should deal with this issue in the legislative committee is that it is, as everybody here fully understands, very, very complicated. A number of us, 50 of us, are supporting H.R. 5371, The Listen Act.

Ms. HARMAN. I would like to ask our chairman: Will you agree that that bill and perhaps others will be the subject of the committee oversight and the subject of a legislative hearing in our committee at a reasonable future date?

Ms. HARMAN. And if you would yield to me again, first, to note that the American Bar Association and numerous civil liberties groups support H.R. 5371. But my further question is, Do you agree that the entire program should be covered by law? The President may have inherent authority to do things, but eavesdropping on Americans in America must be covered by the law that Congress passed. I am not asking you to agree to that point because you may not, although I feel strongly about it. But I am asking you whether you agree that it is the Congress that should determine the legal basis for the President's actions and not the White House acting unilaterally.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the Intelligence Committee in a colloquy. Let me just state before we have this colloquy, my position is that FISA, as presently drafted, must cover the entire program. This is my position after being fully briefed on the program, as the chairman said, and being fully briefed by the NSA and the Justice Department about how FISA works. It is my position that FISA can and must cover the full program. Be that as it may, I would like to ask the chairman some questions. As you noted, Mr. Chairman, some of us on the committee and a total of 50 Members of this House have introduced H.R. 5371, the LISTEN Act, which would require that this program be brought fully under FISA, and which also states that more resources will be made available to change the way FISA is implemented so that using electronic means, more staff, whatever it takes, there will be a more efficient way to get 72-hour emergency warrants. I know you are aware of the contents of our bill. My question to you is are you prepared to hold a legislative hearing in the Intelligence Committee on our bill and any other bills that may be pending before our committee that address this issue of FISA as it is connected to the NSA program?

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

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, are you prepared following the legislative hearing or hearings to report a bill to the House floor? Will you personally agree not to block any bill from being reported to the House floor?

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify this for myself and others who are listening. You are prepared to consider this bill, H.R. 5371, which would force this entire program to comply with FISA. Actually much credit for the construct of H.R. 5371 does go to Mr. Schiff and Mr. Flake. I just want to clarify, and then I would like to yield, H.R. 5371 says the entire program must comply with FISA, and we will hold a legislative hearing on this bill and other bills, the committee will then report legislation to the House floor; is that correct?

Ms. HARMAN. Well, our bill, reclaiming my time, does not reform FISA. It just gives resources to make FISA work.

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

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan, and I would appreciate it if he would answer that comment.

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

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I wish the Judiciary Committee would also act. Mr. Conyers is a lead author with me of the bill I am talking about. But I think it is critical that the Intelligence Committee act because we have the membership that is briefed on the program, and if we report a bill to the House floor for action, I would hope that the House would respond to that promptly.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my California sister, a member of our committee, the ranking member of the Technical and Tactical Intelligence Subcommittee, Ms. Eshoo.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a senior member of our committee and a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, how much time of my 30 minutes remains?

Ms. HARMAN. It is now my intention to yield to members of the minority of the House Intelligence Committee who are here. First, I would yield 3\1/4\ minutes to Representative Boswell who is ranking member on our Subcommittee on Terrorism, Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence. (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and, as prior speakers have done, I commend him for speaking truth to power. Mr. Speaker, 1,184 days ago American troops invaded Iraq to rid Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction. The weapons weren't there. But American troops still are. I have met some of those troops on my three trips to Baghdad and Afghanistan, as well as Pakistan, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Our Armed Forces and intelligence personnel are extraordinary. Many are on their third or fourth tours. As a mother of two sons and two daughters, and as a newly minted grandmother, my heart goes out to families who have lost their dear ones. I am deeply moved by the courage, dignity and patriotism of the men and women recovering from grievous wounds at Walter Reed and other U.S. hospitals. And I have visited with them. Our action in Iraqi created a failed state and, tragically, our postwar mission, as presently defined, cannot succeed. There are too few troops to stabilize the country. They are inadequately equipped. They are fighting an insurgency we didn't predict, at constant risk from IEDs we can't find, with no clearly developed goals to help the new Iraq government achieve political and economic security, and no exit strategy. Two major failures led us to war, and we had best learn some lessons or risk making the same mistakes again. As ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, these failures haunt me. Had we got the intelligence right, I believe we could have made different choices, and the pain and loss and anger many feel could have been avoided. First was a massive intelligence failure in assessing Saddam's WMD capability. The second, equally grave, was the politicization of intelligence by the President and a White House determined to push us toward war. The failure to assess Saddam's WMD capability accurately has been well documented. As CIA weapons inspector David Kay put it, ``we were all wrong.'' Overriding the advice of intelligence professionals, administration officials put stock in bogus sources like CURVEBALL, and self-promoters like Ahmed Chalabi. But simply calling Iraq an intelligence failure ignores the larger policy failures that created the false momentum toward war. The administration cherry-picked intelligence and hyped the threat. They talked in ominous tones about ``mushroom clouds,'' even though many questioned evidence suggesting Saddam had nuclear weapons capability. They made a mantra of the claim that 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi agents in Prague, a claim that has been thoroughly discredited. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz famously predicted we would be greeted as liberators, that Iraqis would throw rose petals, ignoring intelligence community assessments about the potential for armed resistance. Writing in Foreign Affairs, Paul Pillar, the intelligence community's senior Middle East analyst, described how the Bush administration disregarded the community's expertise, politicized the intelligence process, and selected unrepresentative raw intelligence to make its public case. To date, nobody has been held accountable for this misuse of prewar intelligence. The intelligence failures did not end when we invaded Iraq. Our President declared ``Mission Accomplished'' in May 2003. Senior U.S. officials in Iraq asserted in July 2003 that insurgent attacks represented ``a limited problem of some bitter-enders'' loyal to Saddam. Yet, 3 years after Saddam's fall, 2,500 U.S. troops are dead, a number confirmed by the Pentagon just today, and insurgents appear more active than ever. We have surged intelligence resources into Iraq in a frantic effort to find the next IED. As a result, we have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, where Taliban fighters are reconstituting themselves, even as the United States reduces the number of troops there. Osama Bin Ladin and Ayman al Zawahiri are still at large, inspiring a new generation of recruits to the jihad. Just as constant deployments to Iraq cause burnout in the Army, National Guard and Reserves, we are also burning out large numbers of intelligence professionals. And assigning them to Iraq means they are not available to address other national security challenges, like Iran and North Korea. There has been good news. U.S. intelligence agencies operating with Special Operations Forces have tracked down many key terrorist leaders. The takedown of Zarqawi showed the importance of fusing human intelligence, imagery, signals intelligence and a military strike capability in real time. That is how intelligence ought to work. It was a huge tactical victory. But tactical victories alone are not enough. We need a new strategy for Iraq, a dramatic change of course. We need to hold senior officials accountable for massive policy and management failures. Replacing Donald Rumsfeld, the chief architect of the postwar policy, is long overdue. He ignored the advice of senior military advisers, ignored the careful recommendations of those who understood nation-building, and ignored those horrified by a prison situation careening out of control. And he prides himself, even now, on refusing to change a failed policy. Congress must also provide aggressive oversight to learn why the administration erred so grievously. Since I returned from my third trip to Iraq last September, I have been calling on the administration to develop an exit strategy, and I believe it is now time to begin a phased, strategic redeployment of U.S. and coalition forces out of Iraq on a schedule designed by military commanders. A schedule designed by military commanders, not designed by the U.S. Congress. I believe the U.S. is part of the solution in Iraq, but our large military presence is part of the problem. Beginning to reduce the ``footprint,'' while maintaining an over-the-horizon strike force, will improve our chances for success. I think we have 3 to 6 months to advance three objectives: first, helping the new Iraqi Government provide electrical power, particularly in Baghdad, and deliver other critical economic and social services to the Iraqi people. Second, supporting the Iraqi Government in its effort to disarm Shiite militias and integrate them into a trained Iraqi national security force. Third, continuing the process, begun by our able Ambassador Khalilzad, of obtaining buy-in from Sunni political leaders. Achieving these objectives will enable us to leave Iraq in better shape than we found it. Mr. Speaker, the next 3 months are critical. We have a moral obligation to assist Iraq on its path to democracy. But if clearly defined minimum objectives cannot be achieved within that time frame, the prospects for success in Iraq could all but disappear. So a change in course is urgently needed. The President's visit to Baghdad was important, but it is not a substitute for needed policy changes. And Congress cannot be infinitely passive. This debate today will only have meaning if, in fact, it leads to a change of course in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to lead. This resolution, in my view, is a press release for staying the course in Iraq. It does not signal a change in policy, and thus I cannot support it.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to Mr. Holt of New Jersey, ranking member of the Intelligence Policy Subcommittee.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, many on this side advocate a strategy for success. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to another member of our committee, Mr. Ruppersberger of Maryland.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the rookie on our committee, Mr. Tierney of Massachusetts.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to explain to our colleagues that this side is not trying to go wobbly. We are trying to articulate what we believe would be a better strategy for success in Iraq. For our final 2 minutes, I will yield the first minute to Representative Crowley of New York, a member of the International Relations Committee.

Ms. HARMAN. To the prior speaker, we are trying to articulate exactly what we should do. Mr. Speaker, I now yield the final minute of the Intelligence Committee's time to Mr. Van Hollen of Maryland, a member of the National Security Subcommittee of the Government Reform Committee. I thank Mr. Murtha for yielding me the 30 minutes.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, the House passed the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement (COPE) Act. I voted with 105 of my Democratic colleagues in favor of the COPE Act, which will spur much-needed competition in the market for pay-television and high-speed internet services. While communities have expressed concern about the local impact of this bill--and I pledge to work with cities in my district to address those concerns--I believe the act is a crucial step toward providing more affordable broadband services to more consumers. The COPE Act not only encourages innovation and the wider deployment of broadband networks, it will help drive down the price that consumers pay for broadband services. It requires that service providers pay 5 percent of local revenues to local governments--more than many cities currently receive--and that providers pay an additional 1 percent to support public, governmental, and educational programming. It also contains provisions to ensure that service providers do not discriminate against low-income consumers. These are important improvements over existing law. The COPE Act is far from perfect. It inappropriately allows the Federal Communications Commission to resolve local ``rights-of-way'' disputes. These are concerns best handled by local governments. When a broken water main interrupts local TV service, it doesn't make much sense for customers to call an 800 number at the FCC. Still, two amendments added to the bill go a long way toward restoring local control. The first institutes a 90-day period during which local authorities and service providers must meet to resolve right-of-way and fee disputes. Only after the 90-day period can either party bring the dispute to the FCC. This amendment empowers local authorities by forcing providers to work with local officials to resolve most right- of-way and fee disputes. The second gives cities the authority to resolve consumer complaints about cable service, including complaints that a cable provider has failed to provide consumers with fair and open access to the Internet. This amendment would give local officials the legal authority to protect consumers and prevent unfair and discriminatory business practices, which could lead to fines for providers up to $750,000 a day. Equally troubling is the lack of strong ``net neutrality'' language, which would ensure that everyday web surfers have access to the same Internet used by big media companies. Both sides of this dispute want a vibrant Internet that allows fast and fair access to all users. The question is how to get there. Opponents of ``net neutrality'' believe that market forces alone will do the job. I am not so sanguine. I voted for an amendment that would have prohibited service providers from selectively blocking or slowing access to certain Internet content, or from charging certain users extra to send information over the Internet. Though it is not absolutely clear this language is needed now, my vote sends the message that the Internet must remain fair and open to all. I believe we will have more opportunities to address this issue during the conference on the COPE Act. I will work to ensure that the telecommunications legislation Congress sends to the President strikes the right balance and is reflective of the needs of consumers and our communities. This bill makes important progress, but we can make it even better.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, last year, the Intelligence Community made painful decisions about the architecture of our satellite programs. These were hard choices. We have worked carefully to mitigate the damage and retain the capability. The future depends on assuring that our decisions are implemented well. That requires a talented and motivated workforce--both military and civilian. The legislation being introduced today requires the Air Force to study the impact of proposed personnel cuts on our space programs. The bill's sponsors believe that the cuts mandated by the Quadrennial Defense Review could have an enormous impact on the space community, particularly the intellectual talent that gives us the edge over our adversaries and that we have worked so hard to build up over the past decade. Allowing the Air Force to gut its personnel--both Active Duty and contractor support--without the benefit of an impact statement could undercut the careful measures we took to preserve and protect the industrial base. The Department of Defense comptroller has directed the Air Force to ``aggressively reduce contractor support.'' This is a very dangerous path. Contractors have formed the core of our rebuilt space capability after we literally dropped billions of dollars of research and hardware into the ocean in the 1990s. While active duty members often are forced to rotate out of the command due to the pressing needs of the service, the contractor community has provided much of the intellectual capacity, stability, and continuity to keep our programs on track. Today, the Space and Missiles Command, located in El Segundo, California, in my Congressional district, has a record of which everyone is proud--45 successful launches, including 12 Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles. We dare not put that record in jeopardy by releasing one-third of our brain trust. This desire for continuity is also reflected in the Intelligence Committee's report accompanying the FY 2007 Authorization bill, which passed the full House last month. In it, our Committee wrote: ``Simply put, complex space systems acquisition requires extraordinary specialized knowledge, skills, and dedicated effort over time.'' For that very reason, Congress has a right--and a responsibility--to understand the impact of these cuts and be assured that our capability will not be further eroded in the face of pressing national security challenges. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, one year ago the House passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, by a vote of 238-194. I was pleased to see this Chamber put science before ideology. The promise of finding cures for a whole host of debilitating diseases seemed bright. But the year has come and gone, and the Senate has yet to take up its version of the legislation. Further delay is unacceptable. Today, I join my colleagues in the House to urge the Senate to schedule a vote on this critical, life-saving, and life-affirming measure. This bill takes an ethical and moral approach to a challenging subject while respecting the value of life. It allows for federal funds to support research on stem cell lines derived from the surplus embryos of fertility treatments. Fertility clinics do not need these embryos and they would otherwise be discarded, not implanted. It requires explicit written donor consent, and it does not allow stem cells to be sold for profit. Many Members of Congress like to talk about ``values.'' Today, I say to them: using discarded embryos to find life-saving cures is our moral obligation. Saving lives is precisely what we should all care about. Parkinson's disease, cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, spinal cord injuries, and juvenile diabetes do not discriminate--every one of us has had a family member or friend whose life has been changed by one of these debilitating conditions. This is not and should not be a partisan or ideological issue. People from both ends of the political spectrum-- from Nancy Reagan to the late Christopher Reeve--have embraced the promise of stem cell research. It is my hope that the United States Senate will follow their lead. Cures for many serious ailments may lie in stem cell research. We owe it to generations of Americans and their families to help find treatments that could lead to an improved quality of life. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.