Congresswoman Jane Harman, whose district stretches from Venice to the Port of Los Angeles, was quite blunt in responding to the latest report on Port Security funding.
     “Sending money to Martha’s Vineyard and the Virgin Islands instead of focusing our efforts to secure our nation’s largest ports is a shocking blunder by the Department of Homeland Security [DHS],” Harman said in a prepared statement.
     When Random Lengths asked if it might be something worse, perhaps—such as a deliberate neglect of real security in favor of pork-barrel spending—her response was, typically, measured.
     “That’s possible, but I doubt it,” Harman replied. “I think it is just the product of an enormously slow start, and failure to complete the national threat and vulnerability assessments.”
     Harman’s response was typical of the pragmatic, forward-looking attitude she is known for. When asked about the massive failure of Bush’s Iraq policy—executed with broad disregard for the “Powell Doctrine,” she responded, “I think the important thing to do is look forward—and fix the problems that we can fix.”
     “I start with our failure to develop a national strategy on homeland security,” she continued. “The legislation creating the department was supposed to be a building block for that, not just for more pork.” As a Ranking Democratic Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and a Member of the Committee on Homeland Security, she’s given these matters considerable thought.
     Her forward-looking pragmatism served her well as a moderate-to-conservative Democrat in the GOP-dominated House with the Democratic President during the Clinton years. Two significant successes she touched on came out of this era—building the Alameda Corridor with significant federal funds, and moving the federal budget from massive deficits to healthy surpluses. But at the beginning of Bush’s second term, with ideology intensifying on the right, her pragmatism is, paradoxically, starting to seem too idealistic to some. But she doesn’t seem about to change.
     The same day she spoke to Random Lengths, she was scheduled to lead nine Congress members on a tour of the Port. “I want them to see a graphic picture of the security threat we have to protect,” she explained, underscoring her belief that good information can lead to good legislation.
     Another port concern is adequate transportation funding, and reduction of environmental/health costs associated with goods movement—50 percent of which goes out of state. Harman cites the economic impact of the 2002 lockout as proof that local port security is a national security issue. And she says federal funding for the Alameda Corridor was due to, “An appreciation that containers are destined for other places,” as well. What’s more, she says, “I support strong environmental laws, but with a strong balance between the environment and the economy. I see in this case a huge potential market sector for Southern California that could lead to high tech jobs building clean technology.”
     Again, it’s an open question how far her pragmatic problem-solving attitude will go in the current Beltway climate. But there is something she can do on her own. “I’m about to buy one of the first hybrid Lexuses,” she announced.
     Harman’s beltway-pragmatism was also apparent on the day that John Negroponte’s appointment as National Intelligence Director was announced. Harman said, “John Negroponte is a smart choice for a very important job. He’s a seasoned and skilled diplomat who has served with distinction at the United Nations and in Iraq­and he has the full confidence of the President.”
     This comment ignored his previous questionable service as ambassador to Honduras. Negroponte had the full confidence of President Reagan from 1981 to 1985, during the Iran-Contra years when he lied repeatedly to Congress, about the death squads and human rights violations.
     When asked about this record by Random Lengths, Harman clarified, “I am not praising his behavior in the 80s—I think that record should be explored. I know it will be explored. I know that Boxer is on the committee and she will explore that.” But, she reiterated, “I did think he’s someone who can do the DNI job well.”
     On security, Harman said she planned to write to Michael Chertoff, the new DHS secretary, on her return to Washington. “I’m going to urge him to prioritize a serious threat assessment, not like the giant wish list that Tom Ridge left with,” she said, referring to a list “collected from mayors and governors of all their infrastructure they would like to see protected.”
     Making tough choices about critical needs is part of the job Harman seems to relish, where others turn away. Concerning the worldwide threat of terrorism, she sees a serious need to shift priorities in several respects.
     “The Department of Defense has begun a serious look at our force structure—it has to be very different. We’re not going to fight state actors in the future,” Harman explained. “We’re going to fight horizontally-integrated non-state actors. Iraq should teach us that military force alone will not win the war on terror.”
     Yet, Bush’s recent saber-rattling at Iran and Syria underscores a gap between Harman’s pragmatic approach and the still-powerful influence of the neocons inside the Bush Administration.
     Harman also cited, “The challenges of an age of terror strategy, that certainly includes winning the hearts and minds, ensuring the economic security of the people who without any alternatives will become suicide bombers.” But spending in Iraq has been as poorly prioritized as grant making for port security at home—another sign of the gap that frustrates Harman’s attempts to work with the Administration.
     Likewise, Harman argues, the budget process has to be rationalized as well.
     “Budgeting by supplemental is wrong,” she says, bluntly, referring to the continued practice of not paying for Iraq as part of the normal budget process. “These are not discrete battles against terrorism. We are living in an age of terrorism. We need better strategies. They need to be part of our regular budgeting process.”
     Similarly, on Social Security, Harman rejects Bush’s shell-game approach. Harman held one of over 100 town hall meetings on Social Security that Democratic Congress members held during their recent recess.
     “I’m a member of the Blue Dog Democrats, which focuses on fiscal responsibility. We do our best to highlight the problems with this approach. Adding $2 trillion in debt won’t help the situation,” she said, cutting to the chase.
     In today’s Beltway political climate, pragmatism often means stating the obvious, as if it were a revelation.