Jane Harman

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, though I may not oppose it. I really rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the amendment's sponsor. Mr. Chairman, there is much that is good in this amendment. All of us, certainly this Member, oppose the leaks, unauthorized leaks, of classified information. That is the wrong thing to do. All of us who serve on the Intelligence Committee not only took the general oath as Members of Congress, but I believe we signed a second oath as members of the committee, and I have no reason to believe that any one of us ever, not for a nanosecond, has compromised classified information, nor would we. I am sure the amendment's author agrees. I think it is important to say that the Congress wants those who leak in an unauthorized fashion to be prosecuted. I think that is a fair thing to say. I am also in full agreement that the President should use the fullest extent of his power to properly classify information and to protect classified information. But two things are on my mind, and one of them relates to the language here. One thing on my mind, as I stated earlier, is we should not have a double standard. If we are against leaks of classified information, we should be against leaks of classified information everywhere, and I don't believe, and I am not asking the sponsor, unless he would like to comment, that it is proper for the President or the Vice President to use inherent power to authorize their own aides to discuss what was classified information with selected reporters. But the question I want to ask the sponsor is this: there is one section of this amendment that I think is overly broad, and it is clause (7) of the findings, where it says, ``Media corporations and journalists have improperly profited financially from publishing purported unauthorized disclosures of classified information.'' That may be conjecture. I don't personally think that is true. I would like to ask the amendment's sponsor whether he will work with us as this bill goes to conference to modify this language so that it can be absolutely accurate and convey on a bipartisan basis the view that unauthorized leaks are wrong, but that our findings are completely factual on the point.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's sincerity. You know, I enjoy working with you, but I doubt, and that is why I said we need more facts here, I don't think we should allege this unless it is factually based. I doubt the motivation in many of these cases was financial. I doubt it. I understand that books have been written and prizes have been garnered based on publishing classified information, but we have a strong tradition of freedom of the press and a strong constitutional amendment, the first amendment, that protects freedom of speech. So I think we should be very careful in making claims like this. What I am seeking is just a commitment that we will review this language and make sure that we all feel it is factually based.

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

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers and I do appreciate the comments of the amendment's sponsor on his amendment. I do intend to support the amendment and then to work with him and our chairman on some modifications of that amendment in the conference. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, this month marks the third anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Our troops, who have performed heroically, want to finish their mission and return home. Success in Iraq depends on true power-sharing, and that will not happen so long as Iraqis suspect that the United States will maintain permanent military bases. That is why I strongly support the Lee amendment, which will send a clear signal to the Iraqi people that the United States does not seek a permanent presence. Mr. Chairman, I have spoken to the President, the Vice President, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about this. Statements by Secretary Rumsfeld alone are not sufficient. Only when the President makes clear that we intend to leave Iraq, not to referee a civil war, will Iraqis realize that power-sharing is their best and last hope. I thank my good friend, Congresswoman Lee, for introducing this important amendment, and I thank her for her courageous stands all the time in the House.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, America recently lost one of her most influential daughters, Willie Grace Campbell. Born and raised as women's suffrage took root, Willie's unwavering commitment and passion for women's rights and civil liberties gave opportunity and inspiration to those like me who knew and loved her. In an era where career-driven women were uncommon, Willie successfully balanced the challenge of being a mother while pursuing her commitment to education and community service. After moving to Indianapolis with her husband and three children in 1945, Willie established the city's first League of Women's Voters branch and membership quickly grew. She went on to serve as the League's State President and, in 1959, ascended to the national board as a member of the Indiana Advisory Committee of the U.S. Conference on Civil Rights. A cornerstone of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, Willie launched voter education projects in American inner cities and trained thousands of urban and suburban female voters. She participated in the first White House Conference on Civil Rights in 1965, and emerged from the conference with landmark recommendations and strategies for using litigation, in addition to legislation, to confront restrictive voting rights. Willie expanded her advocacy in the 1970s, involving herself with the National Women's Political Caucus and the National Women's Education Fund while acting as President and Board Chairwoman of the Overseas Education Fund International. From Latin America and Africa to Washington, DC, Willie's campaign for women's equality and social justice successfully challenged the global status quo. Not surprisingly, she went on to serve on the board of Women, Law and Development International, an organization devoted to the defense and promotion of women's rights. Even in her last days, Willie proudly served as Vice Chairwoman of the Board of Directors of the African Development Foundation, a position assigned to her by President Clinton. Willie was a mentor, not only to me, but to many women in politics and the advocacy community. At age 90, she remained the youngest one in the group, with a ready smile, enormous energy, zest and wisdom. All who encountered her marveled at her passion and purpose. Willie, you have raised the bar for each of us. I am honored to pay you tribute.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, the Patriot Act Conference Report which Congress will amend today deals with the outcry leveled at provisions in the original Patriot Act that allow the government to have access to library records. I strongly agree that the original PATRIOT Act was too broad: it permitted the FBI and other agencies to issue National Security Letters (NSL)--secret administrative subpoenas--without court approval to obtain a wide range of data from libraries that had little or nothing to do with fighting terrorists. But embedded in the law was something I felt and still feel was essential to prevent and disrupt terrorist plots: it covered Internet sites at libraries that also function as Internet Service Providers (ISPs), places terrorists use to communicate with each other--something they have done effectively in the effort to evade being monitored. Though it was extremely unpopular, I voted against early efforts to repeal Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act--the so called Library Provision--because those efforts included ISPs. Last year, Congressman Bernie Sanders' amendment Section 215 expressly did not include ISPs, and I spoke for it on the floor. Today's bill modifies the PATRIOT Act by barring the government from using NSLs to obtain records from libraries functioning in their traditional roles. Only libraries that also function as ISPs are now covered. This compromise is right and the law ensures that we can continue to monitor terrorist activity on the Internet. In my view, however, we need to do more. Congress should fold additional checks and balances into the NSL process to protect business and other records in the same way this bill protects libraries. Checks and balances--such as those contained in legislation sponsored by the Intelligence Committee Democrats and senior Judiciary Committee Democrats--would subject NSLs to judicial oversight and enhanced congressional scrutiny. The specter of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil is very real. It is a prospect that keeps me up at night. Clearly, we need modem tools to track 21st century threats, but not at the expense of our precious liberties, which are the essential foundation of American democracy. Today's bill to amend the PATRIOT Act is a step in the right direction.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, last week I stood at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the largest container port complex in the nation, with my good friend Senator Susan Collins, the chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. We both have championed the fight to strengthen security at our ports. As of last week, neither of us had been briefed on the review conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS, into the sale of stevedoring and terminal operations of many major eastern seaboard and Gulf Coast ports to a state-owned firm from Dubai. This sale would not only affect the six major US port terminal facility leases that have been reported, but additional operations in 15 other locations, including ports shipping military materiel. Last week, we stated our concerns about the announced sale and our plan to issue a Joint Resolution of Disapproval. Today, I am introducing in the House the Joint Resolution which Senator Collins introduced yesterday, S.J. Res. 32. This resolution would do three things. First, it officially disapproves of CFIUS's initial review of the Dubai Ports World deal. Second, it requires CFIUS to rescind its previous decision and conduct a formal 45-day investigation. Third, it requires that CFIUS brief the Congress before allowing the deal to proceed, if in fact that is the decision after a full, complete and proper evaluation of the national security risks posed by this arrangement. Since Senator Collins and I announced our intentions last week, there has been some progress. Dubai Ports World has agreed to a secondary review, the Administration has agreed to a 45-day assessment of the sale, and, beginning this week, some committees of Congress will now be briefed. But the bad news is that this process got as far as it did, and that it took deep bipartisan concern to have Congress brought into the loop. When our country considers these important deals, Congress should be on the front lines, not the back bench. And as we heard yesterday from a Senate briefing, the U.S. Coast Guard cited their concerns over the deal at the time. The U.S. Coast Guard plays a critical role in ensuring the security of our ports, and their reservations make me question why this deal was approved as quickly as it was. This issue has also served to highlight the fact that our Nation's ports remain inadequately protected. As a member of both the House Intelligence and Homeland Security Committees, I have consistently worked to improve our national security, and believe much remains to be done. When we focus 9 out of 10 transportation security dollars on aviation security, we fall into the trap of fighting the last war instead of the next one. Fighting terror requires that we look forward, and what keeps me up at night is the possibility of a radiological bomb or human terrorist entering our ports in an uninspected container. When it comes to port security, we should have solid answers, not lingering questions. In this Era of Terror, there remains a constant threat to our homeland. We don't have the luxury of waiting to harden the obvious vulnerable targets. I have visited the Los Angeles/Long Beach port complex many times. I have authored and co-authored bipartisan port security legislation. Representative Dan Lungren and I will introduce a comprehensive bill soon to ensure a coordinated approach to maritime and cargo security through the authorization of key security programs and initiatives, as well as a dedicated funding grant program to shore up security gaps that exist at our Nation's ports. Senators Collins, Lieberman, and Coleman have introduced similar legislation in the Senate, and both bills will be the subject of hearings in this Congress. This resolution on CFIUS is prudent; so are our efforts to legislate enhanced port security. I urge its support.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support powerful, flexible, and modern tools to detect the plans and intentions of terrorists who may be operating in our country. For that reason, I voted for the PATRIOT Act, even though I believed and still believe there is room for improvement. We are being asked today to extend the PATRIOT Act for 5 weeks so that Congress can continue to work on some of its most controversial provisions. I think this extension makes good sense. We must extend it, mend it, but not end it. To that end, I hope we can soon reach agreement on critical issues. First, we should modify the report to explicitly require that records sought under Section 215--commonly called the Library provision--be connected to a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. This is the traditional FISA standard. A looser standard invites ``fishing expeditions.'' Second, we should explicitly state 215 recipients have the right to challenge a gag order in court. Third, we should ensure that National Security Leaders are not used as back doors for getting library circulation, medical, tax and educational institutions records, and to modify the ``conclusive presumption'' language which makes it virtually impossible for NSL recipients to challenge ``gag'' orders in court. These and other critical changes to NSLs are included H.R. 4570--a bill that I, my colleagues on the Intelligence Committee, Representative Conyers and other congressional leaders introduced in December. As part of the negotiations, Congress must also insist that the President provide the facts on his NSA terrorist surveillance program. His refusal to brief the 36 Members of the intelligence committees, even though hundreds of people in the executive branch have been briefed, violates the requirements of the National Security Act of 1947. The President also needs to explain why current law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, does not provide an adequate framework for his program. Some claim that FISA cannot handle modern communications. But the fact is that the administration requested, and Congress passed as part of the PATRIOT Act of 2001, numerous changes to FISA to deal with phones, e-mail and the Internet. For example, Congress lowered the legal standards for FISA pen registers and trap- and-trace devices to make it easier to track the calls of terrorists who may be in the U.S. We also expanded these pen traps to cover e-mail and the Internet, and we granted roving John Doe wiretap authority to deal with the issue of unidentified terrorists switching phones. Moreover, in the 2002 Intelligence Authorization Act, we extended the FISA emergency provision to 72 hours, so that surveillance is not delayed by the paperwork involved in getting a warrant. All of these authorities were powers that the President asked for and supported. Mr. Speaker, FISA is modern, flexible, and effective. Since 1979, 19,000 warrants have been approved. Those who prepare the warrants tell me the process is efficient. If the President believes otherwise, he must come to Congress and explain why. Mr. Speaker, the message conferees, and I am one, must send is that the American people want to do whatever is necessary to defend America. Let me repeat: the American people want to do whatever is necessary to defend America. But we also want our President to follow the law.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, two days ago, the House passed the conference report to H.R. 3199 reauthorizing certain expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. The final bill failed to include adequate safeguards on national security letters, NSLs, which are requests for personal data and records issued directly by Government agencies without the approval of a judge. NSLs have existed since the 1970s, but their use--primarily by the FBI--greatly expanded after 9/11. Using NSL authorities, the Government has collected and maintained data on thousands of Americans. NSLs are important investigative tools, but their use has grown rapidly--and without adequate oversight. NSLs may be issued by the FBI without asking a judge for a warrant. In this way, they differ from orders under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, for business records under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, the so-called library provision. Section 215 orders must be approved by a Federal judge. NSLs have been characterized as ``back doors'' for obtaining library and other records that may not be available under FISA. If 215 orders can be called ``fishing licenses,'' then NSLs allow fishing without a license. Defenders of NSLs liken them to grand jury subpoenas. However, they are different in important respects. First, grand jury subpoenas may only be issued by a U.S. Attorney as officer of the court. NSLs may be issued by an FBI agent in the field without any review by a jury or court. Second, grand jury subpoenas may only be issued after suspicion that a Federal crime has occurred; for NSLs, the standard is much lower--requiring only that the information sought is ``relevant'' to a national security investigation. Congressional oversight of NSLs is almost nonexistent. Congress receives a classified one-page summary listing aggregate numbers of NSLs at least 6 months after they are issued. These reports are essentially meaningless and are the only oversight Congress at present exercises. Clearly, there is a need to reform NSL standards and processes. This bill addresses this need by incorporating checks and balances on the front-end and back-end of the process. On the front-end, the bill: Restores the pre-Patriot Act standard for issuing NSLs: the government must show a specific connection to a terrorist or foreign power before an NSL could be issued; requires approval of each NSL by a FISA Court or designated federal magistrate judge; requires the FISA Court to set up an electronic system for filing NSL applications, so that requests are expedited and investigations will not be slowed down. On the back-end, the legislation: Provides a Sense of Congress that, in cases where an NSL recipient challenges the ``gag''/non-disclosure requirement, the government's certification that harm to national security will occur shall be treated as a ``rebuttable'' presumption, not as ``conclusive'' evidence that harm would occur; requires minimization procedures to ensure destruction of information obtained through NSL requests that is no longer needed; and requires detailed semi-annual reports to the Congressional Intelligence and Judiciary Committees on all NSLs issued, minimization procedures, court challenges, and how NSLs aided investigations and prosecutions. We must arm our investigators with the tools to catch terrorists, spies and others who threaten our national security. But, we must do so in a manner that protects the cherished liberty and privacy expectations of U.S. citizens. This legislation will not hobble the investigative process nor hamper our pursuit of the terrorists. It will impose much-needed accountability and oversight.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, this vote on the PATRIOT Act reauthorization is tough; it is far from being the best bill it could be. But I will vote for it and want to explain why. Imagine a world in which terrorists make deals and connect with recruits on-line, in cabs, hotel lobbies or cafes all over the world. Communication is highly compartmentalized so few, if any, know what the big plans are. Sometimes, physical runners deliver messages to evade listening devices. Such a world is not the stuff of Hollywood movies. It is our 21st century world. The horrific events of September 11, and the more recent bombings in Bali, Britain, Jordan, Madrid, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Turkey remind us that the terrorists are prepared to strike anywhere, at any time-- and with maximum destructive force. With this as a backdrop, it has been and remains my view that the PATRIOT Act tools are needed: to track communications by email and internet, including the use of internet sites in libraries; and to prevent and disrupt plots against us. Such powerful tools must be narrowly tailored to ensure that they do not violate the rights of innocent Americans. In reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act, Congress had an opportunity to refine the law, but this conference report reflects only modest improvements. Many of us in both bodies worked hard to make this conference report better. In the end, we asked for three things of critical importance. First, four-year sunsets on the most controversial provisions-- Section 215 orders; Section 206 roving wiretaps, and the Lone Wolf provision. This request was accepted. Second, dropping the 1-year criminal penalty on divulging that a National Security Letter has been received, even in a case where there is no intent to obstruct justice. This request was also accepted. Third, modifying the ``conclusive'' presumption that disclosure of an NSL would harm national security. The legislation properly establishes that recipients of NSLs have the ability to consult an attorney and challenge an NSL in a Federal court. But the ``conclusive'' presumption language makes it virtually impossible to challenge the ``gag'' order on recipients of NSLs. This is an important flaw in the bill and, sadly, our requested change was not accepted. To remedy this, several of us will introduce legislation to replace the ``conclusive'' presumption language with a ``rebuttable'' presumption, and to incorporate critical checks and balances on the ``front end'' of the NSL process. Such changes will help ensure NSLs cannot be used as a ``back door'' for getting library circulation, medical, tax, educational or other sensitive records, and will help protect against other abuses. This legislation will also ensure Congress is finally provided with meaningful, detailed reports on NSLs, which are critical to effective oversight. Another flaw in the report is Section 215, commonly called the Library provision, which allows the government to gather a wide range of business materials, including library, medical and tax records. This section is tightened by requiring that the records must be ``relevant'' to a terrorism investigation. But the conference report should have explicitly required that the records be connected to a foreign power, or an agent of a foreign power--the traditional FISA standard. My refusal to sign the conference report was to protest the way the Conference was managed. Instead of taking a few additional days to craft a strong bipartisan report that strikes the best balance, the majority rushed to file this flawed report. That is why I have co- sponsored HR 4506, to provide a 3-month extension of the PATRIOT Act to give the conferees additional time to bring to the floor a more carefully tailored bill with strong bipartisan support. But the majority insists we proceed today. My view of the PATRIOT Act is we need to mend it, not end it. Today we are mending it. Hopefully, soon, we will mend it further.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. Earlier today, the Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee issued a letter to the chairman of our committee protesting his decision to shut down a bipartisan investigation into the intelligence failures that led us into war. Failure to learn from the mistakes of the past is an abdication of our responsibility to the American people and dangerous for our country. If we do not learn lessons, we will repeat mistakes. It is likewise the responsibility of this House to conduct rigorous oversight over our policy in Iraq. There is now broad consensus in the country that we need to change course. Many of us have offered thoughtful suggestions to do just that. Let me be clear, it is not our troops who have failed. They are performing heroically, as are our intelligence personnel. A month ago, on my most recent visit to Iraq, I had dinner with troops from California who are part of Task Force Baghdad. They are doing an outstanding job. Reasonable people can differ on whether we should redeploy troops in 6 months or 16 months and what events should drive that redeployment, but today we stand united that a change of course is urgently needed. We stand united behind the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), our colleague, a 37-year veteran who has had his patriotism attacked by the White House, but who is not backing down, and we stand united that the Republican leadership should not use a stunt like this to score political points. In case anyone missed it, the terrorists do not care whether we are Democrats or Republicans. They are not going to check our party registration before they blow us up. I take a back seat to no one in my efforts to craft bipartisan solutions to problems. Iraq policy is failing, and it is time for this House to be bipartisan as the Senate was earlier this week, and it is way past time for this White House to give us a serious strategy and to clarify its intentions with respect to no permanent bases, no design on Iraqi oil, and a plan to help build true power sharing among the ethnic factions and true operational capability in the Iraqi security forces. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. This resolution is intended to divide us, to put partisanship in the way of patriotism.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and I commend him for his leadership. And I am pleased to see that, so far, this debate has all been in favor of support of this motion to instruct, which I think is a very important statement for this House to make. Madam Speaker, I take my responsibilities as ranking member of the Intelligence Committee very seriously. I spend a lot of my day and a lot of my weekend, and most of my nights thinking and dreaming about how I can add value to protecting Americans and American interests. Earlier today, hotels in Amman, Jordan, were bombed. Over 50 people are dead, scores are wounded. The terrorists are there, and let us not make any mistake about it, they are trying to be here again. So it is absolutely correct that we need modern and appropriate legal authorities to find them, and prevent and disrupt their plans before they are able to execute them. Prevention and disruption is much better than response, and I think everyone in this Chamber is dedicated to making sure we have the right tools. That is why the PATRIOT Act passed 45 days after 9/11, overwhelmingly, and that is why the House bill passed again recently by a large margin. However, consistent with statements that Mr. Rohrabacher has just made, as we give these expanded authorities, we also need to assure the law-abiding public of America that we will be vigilant in supervising these authorities. Not just today, not just in the oversight hearings we held during this last year and, yes, we held a lot of them, but tomorrow and next year and the year after. Having sunsets for these controversial provisions matters. That is why in the Intelligence Committee Mr. Ruppersberger and Mr. Hastings offered amendments to impose sunsets. Some amendments passed, but they did not survive in the final House bill. Sunsets are a good idea, and I think with very strong bipartisan support in this Chamber, that these new authorities need to carry with them the promise that Congress will be vigilant and, that 4 years from now, we will reconsider whether they are necessary. Let me also add a word about national security letters, which were a remedy designed in the 1970s. I think national security letters, a tool not in the PATRIOT Act, need to be reviewed as well by this House, and I think we need to consider whether the authority is too broad or whether, using a magistrate system or some other system, they should be reviewed before they are issued. They should not become the backdoor route to using PATRIOT Act authorities without going through this careful system we have set up. So, in conclusion, Madam Speaker, it is a dangerous world. We need the tools necessary to find the so-called ``bad guys'' before they attack us, but we also need the tools necessary to assure law-abiding Americans that we are paying careful attention, and that the Congress, an independent branch, will not now, not ever, let down our responsibility to safeguard civil liberty for American citizens.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, due to travel for official government business, I missed votes on the House floor from Tuesday, September 27 to Thursday, September 29, 2005. I ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to vote Wednesday, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 501, final passage of the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act. I also ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to vote Thursday, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 505, the Miller amendment to improve H.R. 3824 through bipartisan compromise, and ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 506, final passage of the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, last night the Senate passed an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act that would establish clear guidelines for interrogating prisoners we capture in war zones or counter- terrorism operations. The amendment was co-sponsored by Sens. McCain, Lindsay Graham, Warner, Hagel, Gordon Smith, and Collins and passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 90-9. Today we are introducing a bill which is identical to the Senate-passed amendment. Our legislation would clarify that no person may be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment--regardless of whether they are Americans, and regardless of whether they are held outside the U.S. (i.e., in Guantanamo Bay). The legislation would also mandate that all DOD personnel employ only those interrogation techniques that are authorized by the Army Field Manual. Interrogations are vital to obtaining intelligence in the fight against terrorism. But cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment violates U.S. treaty obligations and undermines our moral authority. It has also been shown to be ineffective at eliciting actionable intelligence. Our troops and intelligence personnel have been forced to operate in a ``fog of law''--a patchwork of post 9/11 legal memos and policies that appeared to have condoned cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Our legislation would clarify the rules governing interrogations so that there can be no doubt what conduct is authorized. Our legislation has been endorsed by a group of 29 retired military officers, including 3 ``four stars''--General Joseph Hoar, General John Shalikashvili, and General Donn Starry. It has also been endorsed by a broad cross-section of civil liberties groups. There are some complimentary proposals which may be introduced at a later date. But in the meantime, this excellent proposal has momentum and bipartisan support, and we urge the House to support it.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, September 14, 2005, I was unavoidably absent from the House of Representatives during rollcall votes 468 and 469. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 468 and ``aye'' on rolllcall vote 469.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, Congress debated the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993, I wrote an op-ed titled ``Not This Treaty, Not Now,'' arguing that NAFTA's time had not come, that the U.S. and Canada should require Mexico to meet certain preconditions before agreeing to the trade deal. Over the objections of those who argued NAFTA should be used to leverage reforms in Mexico, it passed without enforceable provisions to protect labor rights or the environment. Supporters of the agreement insisted NAFTA would create millions of good jobs, help stem illegal immigration and raise living standards ``from the Yukon to the Yucatan.'' A decade later, NAFTA's promise is largely unrealized. Environmental conditions in Mexico have worsened, real wages have stagnated, the income disparity between the U.S. and Mexico has widened, and illegal immigration shows no signs of slowing. Clearly, NAFTA is not all that advocates claimed. The broken promises of NAFTA should serve as a warning, and cast doubt on similar claims that the recently negotiated Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) will do what NAFTA has not. Our Central American neighbors have made real economic and political progress in recent years, and the U.S. should work to re-enforce that progress. But as with NAFTA, CAFTA brings together countries with greatly varying labor and environmental standards and enforcement methods. This disparity necessitates strong and enforceable provisions to protect workers and the environment. As did NAFTA, CAFTA comes up short. CAFTA's penalties for failing to enforce labor and environmental laws provide no real deterrent against future abuses; it offers no incentives to improve standards over time. In fact, CAFTA weakens labor protections by removing an existing oversight mechanism available under our current system of trade preferences for the region. CAFTA also incorporates NAFTA's troubling Chapter 11 provisions, which effectively give foreign investors the right to challenge U.S. health, safety and environmental laws. California has been at the forefront of efforts to protect its communities from air and water pollution, yet CAFTA gives foreign investors the right to challenge our state law if it affects their commercial interests. Free and fair trade can lift living standards both at home and abroad, encourage technological innovation, create jobs and empower individuals. But each agreement must be considered on its merits. Bilateral agreements with Chile, Singapore, Jordan, and Australia; normal trade relations with China; and renewal of ``fast track'' approval were issues I supported. But trade is not fair if desperate people are forced to work in hazardous conditions or communities are forced to bear the costs of environmental degradation. In the context of lax enforcement of labor and environmental regulations, free trade can provide perverse incentives to impose the costs of production onto workers, communities and the environment. Such incentives serve neither the economic interests of the U.S. nor our trading partners. Mr. Speaker, with respect to CAFTA, I echo my refrain from 10 years ago: ``Not this treaty, and not now.''

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), a valued member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the only one of us successful enough to get his language adopted in the bill before us today. (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, to the last speaker, I agree it is good, but I think it could be a lot better. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), the former rookie 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. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the London attacks this morning, be they copycat terrorism or yet another al Qaeda attempt, are one more reminder of how vulnerable we are. We need effective tools to combat terrorism. The terrorist threat is real, and if we are going to demand that the FBI uncover terror cells in the U.S., we need to give them the tools to do that. The al Qaeda organization that attacked us on 9/11 has changed. It is no longer a top-down centralized terror group planning acts from overseas. Instead, we face a loose network of home-grown terror cells, or what I call franchise terrorism. Their attacks draw inspiration from al Qaeda, but they act independently, making it tougher to disrupt their plans. I want to make two points about the PATRIOT Act. First, it gave law enforcement some important new legal authorities. But new legal authorities, Mr. Chairman, on their own, will not protect us from terrorism. We need to shift priorities, to develop better strategies and devote greater resources to protect our soft targets, like rail, subways, and ports, and that we have not yet done. Second, on the issue of reauthorizing the 16 provisions that are sunsetting, my view is ``mend it, don't end it.'' The PATRIOT Act was passed 45 days after 9/11, with little debate. We were bracing for more terror. The invasion of Afghanistan had begun and Capitol Hill was hit with anthrax attacks. Congress did a fairly decent job, and I supported the bill, but we can do better. We should reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, which modernized law enforcement tools, but we should clarify and tailor the authorities so that the government does not have a license to engage in fishing expeditions for your personal information or conduct FBI surveillance on innocent Americans. The bill on the floor today is better than the original PATRIOT Act. And if some of the amendments we will consider pass, it will be even better. But my colleagues on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will describe in a moment amendments which we offered in committee and before the Committee on Rules. Those amendments are solid, moderate, and bipartisan, and they should be able to be debated today. The good news is that the Senate Judiciary Committee, on a bipartisan basis, has just reported a bill that includes many of them. That bill, I hope, will serve as the model in conference committee. That bill could have been the House bill. In conclusion, protecting America from terrorism is not a Democrat or Republican issue, it is an American issue. As I have often said, the terrorists are not going to check our party registration before they blow us up. So when we defend America, let us forget party labels and focus on what will provide security and liberty for the American people. Balancing liberty and security is not a zero sum game. You either get more of both or less. The American people deserve more of both. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. (Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, as many have said, we are all watching events unfold in London this morning, hoping that this is not another gruesome act of terrorism. If they can strike twice in the heart of London, a city on high alert, then just think what they might try to do in any city in America. That is why we need tough tools here at home to uncover terror cells and disrupt their plans. The PATRIOT Act modernizes law enforcement's tools to uncover those plots. Most of the act is not objectionable, but it is far from perfect, and there are several key provisions that allow the government to engage in unnecessarily broad searches and surveillance of innocent Americans. That is why I strongly believe we should mend it, not end it. The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence tried to mend it, but the Committee on Rules did not make any of our amendments in order. Nine of us offered responsible, common-sense amendments: To establish the traditional FISA standard for search warrants and trap and trace/pen register authorities, to ensure that the government cannot seize your personal records unless they are related to a foreign power; To tighten the ability of the FBI to conduct roving wiretaps, to ensure that only terror suspects and their enablers, not innocent Americans, are wiretapped; To re-sunset the key provisions in the act in another 4 years to assure accountability and effective congressional oversight, and specifically to sunset the Lone Wolf provision, enacted only 8 months ago, in 2010; Finally, to prohibit the FBI from using the broad FISA powers to get bookstore or library documentary records, a provision which passed this House last month on a strong bipartisan vote. Mr. Speaker, the Hastings amendment to sunset the Lone Wolf provision was accepted by the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra). He accepted the amendment and it passed on a bipartisan vote. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) is a valued member of the Committee on Rules, but his own committee stripped out his amendment in the base bill and did not even allow him to offer it on the floor. This is about intelligence. The Committee on Rules should not be able to block the will of Democrats and Republicans on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to improve the PATRIOT Act. Mr. Speaker, this rule undermines the will of the House and blocks us from mending and improving critical tools in this era of terror.