To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jane Harman
Jane Harman official photo.jpg
President of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Assumed office
February 28, 2011
Preceded byLee Hamilton
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from California's 36th district
In office
January 3, 2001 – February 28, 2011
Preceded bySteven T. Kuykendall
Succeeded byJanice Hahn
In office
January 3, 1993 – January 3, 1999
Preceded byGeorge Brown Jr.
Succeeded bySteven T. Kuykendall
Personal details
Jane Margaret Lakes

(1945-06-28) June 28, 1945 (age 74)
New York City, New York, U.S.
Political partyDemocratic
Spouse(s)Richard Frank (1969–1978)
Sidney Harman (1980–2011)
EducationSmith College (BA)
Harvard University (JD)

Jane Margaret Lakes Harman (born June 28, 1945) is the former U.S. Representative for California's 36th congressional district, serving from 1993 to 1999, and from 2001 to 2011; she is a member of the Democratic Party. Harman was the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and the Homeland Security Committee's intelligence subcommittee. When Democrats held the House majority, she was in line to chair the House intelligence committee but was denied the post by then-Speaker Pelosi.[1] Resigning from Congress in February 2011, Harman became President and CEO of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.[2] She succeeded former Congressman Lee H. Hamilton and is the first woman to lead the organization.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/2
    1 470
    5 448
  • ✪ Congresswoman Jane Harman at HLS: On the evolving threat of terrorism
  • ✪ Jane Harman Tries To Explain Away Her Traitorist Ways


DEAN MARTHA MINOW: So Congresswoman Jane Harman is one of the most outstanding public servants in this country. There's no question about it. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: I knew I came up here for a reason. Is that all you're going to say? DEAN MARTHA MINOW: No, I'm going to say just two more sentences, because I want to make sure you have most of the time. Her leadership while on the Hill, her expertise having to do with some of the hardest issues in this country-- dealing with counterterrorism, dealing with armed services, and her pioneering approach to leadership, whether it's actually being a strong woman who supports strong women, or other kinds of issues. I just have to say, we are unbelievably lucky that she is here. She is here this year-- we are so honored-- in the role of the Klinsky Professor, which is an opportunity that we have because of the generosity of an alum, Steve and Maureen Klinsky, to bring to campus people who have done things that don't look like the typical law career. So we're going to spend some of our time today talking about your amazing career. Right now, as the head of the Wilson Center, which is a bipartisan policy think tank, she is still deeply involved in the most pressing issues, with the commitment to come up with concrete, doable solutions. So we will get to all of that. But first we're going to ask your view about last night's election. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: (LAUGHS) Where's the scotch? First of all, do all of you know how lucky you are to have Martha as the dean here? DEAN MARTHA MINOW: (LAUGHING) Oh, please! CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Raise your hand if you love Martha. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: (LAUGHING) Oh, no! CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Raise your hand if you don't love Martha. [LAUGHTER] No. OK. So, last night was bad. It's not because-- although I am Democrat-- it's not because I think only Democrats can win. But it is because I think that a few people who were really good problem-solvers-- there aren't many in Congress-- got knocked off. And the fewer problem-solvers there are, the more dysfunctional-- if that's possible-- the place gets. And I'm very depressed about this election. I think people were dissatisfied with Obama. We can go into that. I know he's an HLS grad, as I am, and as you all will be. But I think there are things he has and has not done that are making people frustrated. I know they were dissatisfied with the economy. That's really not his fault. But the income gap is making it so most people don't feel that even though the economy's recovering, that they're recovering. But I also think this was just a protest vote. And anyone who was anywhere near Washington-- although yes, some Washington insiders won-- but a lot of people who weren't near Washington won, as a protest vote. How this all sorts out, we'll see. But-- DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Does it hurt to actually be bipartisan right now in politics? CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: It's hurt for a long time. There is no political value in being bipartisan. There is a value-- I mean, putting the country first, I happen to think, is a very good thing to do. But if you look at the primary system in most states, you get punished for being bipartisan. And I'll hold up as my poster person a guy named Dick Lugar, from Indiana, who was in the Senate for 40 years-- a Republican who made deals all the time, put the country first, very, very informed on foreign policy, lovely man who got knocked off in the primary in this election cycle by an absolute nobody, with no credentials. And then of course, the Democrat won. I mean so-- I guess it was the last election cycle. So who wins in that case? And I think that people-- I have my own battle scars for being bipartisan. But I think the way Congress works is if people are ready to do deals. The way the presidency works is if the President's ready to do deals with the Congress. And we have come up short on both counts. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Well, I guess I have to take you up on the suggestion of saying something about President Obama. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Oh, me? Well, you can too! You all can. I think he's an extremely bright man. I have to confess, I was a Hillary delegate in the last cycle. And I was still then a member of Congress. But when she lost-- she ran a terrible campaign, I think most people would agree. When she lost, I endorsed him. And I was a surrogate for him during the general election cycle. And I had enormously high hopes. I didn't support her because I didn't like him. I supported her because she was a very old and dear friend of mine and had personally asked for my support. And I personally wanted to support a strong and qualified woman, also. That wasn't the only reason I supported her. But when she when she lost the primary, I supported him enthusiastically. And I think he's done some things very well. But his problem is, he had virtually no experience running anything. And this is a big enterprise. And assembling a team that can run things, and then having the right instincts, it seems to me, to engage with other people-- and as I said, do deals-- are essential parts of it, regardless of how smart you are. And he's surely smart enough for this. And he has tried some courageous things. And a few have worked very well. On the one hand, I voted for health care reform, and I'm proud that he did it. The bill was hardly perfect, but he got the bill he could get. I'm also proud that he announced that he was going to close Guantanamo Bay prison. Unfortunately, it's not closed. I'm looking at my friend Phil. And I think that's a-- DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Congress was CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: tragedy. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: --partly to blame for that. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Congress is-- yes, but Congress boxed him in. If he had set that up in a smarter way, he might have gotten there by now. And it's really sad. So you know, he's not blameless with that. I think the takedown of Osama bin Laden also was done brilliantly. And he put his career on the line to do that. That could have been botched. So those are a few things, both good and bad. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Tell us about how you got into politics. Was it something you thought about when you were in law school, or even before? How did this happen? And how did you develop the extraordinary expertise that you did on these very tough national security issues? CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: I talked to Phil Heymann. He knows everything. So my story is-- and some of you may have a story like this, except it would apply to your great grandparents. In my case, I grew up in Los Angeles. Daughter of immigrants. Both parents first in their families to go to college. And I went to public school in Los Angeles. And in 1960, before most of your grandparents were born-- but that was Phil's graduating year from Harvard Law School. Ha! Is that right? Yeah. In 1960, I went to the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles as a high school kid. And I was there when John Kennedy was nominated for President. And I met-- literally met-- Eleanor Roosevelt, and a number of other important players. And on the spot, I just knew. This is my career. This is what I'm doing. I didn't get there in five minutes. But I was there when Kennedy gave his acceptance speech at the LA Colosseum, which is the place where USC plays-- the Trojans play football. It's still there. It's a very old, wonderful landmark. But any rate, I then ran my high school Young Democratic Club. I went to Smith College, which back in the day was mostly Republican. But I ran the Democrats at Smith. Got involved in Massachusetts politics. I came here right after college. By the way, at Smith I decided I wanted to go to law school, and went to take the law boards. Have you heard this story? DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Tell it-- CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Smith didn't offer the law boards, because girls didn't go to law school. And so I had to go to Amherst, then all boys, or males, and take the law boards there. So I came here. And among other things, I was a research assistant for Abe Chayes. Most of you have seen his glorious picture on the wall. He was a fabulous guy who had been the legal advisor at the State Department. And he was very involved in the Bobby Kennedy campaign. So then I got to that. And then I graduated and moved to Washington. Of course I did. And this was 1969. Richard Nixon was President. Just picture this, guys. And so I actually then married someone I had met who went here, whom I'd met in a job interview that Abe Chayes made me go to. Don't ask. It was the time. It was Vietnam. I didn't go to my own graduation. People were in a different place, mentally. And I left the country. What else would you do? Richard Nixon was President. Came back. And then I got involved-- first, I practiced law briefly, but had two classmates who were working for a California senator named John Tunney, son of Gene Tunney, the famous fighter. And I, against the advice of everyone in my law firm, took a leave of absence for a year, and went to work for Tunney as a legislative assistant. Of course, I stayed five. I became his chief LA. And then I became chief counsel of each of two subcommittees that he chaired, the second of which was the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights. And that was a big deal, back in the day. Sam Ervin, whom you've probably never heard of-- who ran the Watergate committee in the Senate-- had retired. And Tunney got the slot. And it was just an extraordinary ride. And from there to the Carter White House. And then, in case anybody missed it, Carter lost. Ted Kennedy challenged Carter, and both lost to Ronald Reagan in 1980. So I was in the wilderness for 12 years, practicing law, which wasn't my favorite occupation, volunteering for every political activity. And then in 1992, when I was mother of four, leading a kind of bi-coastal life, a classmate of mine from here, Mel Levine, who was a member of Congress from west Los Angeles where I grew up, decided to run for the Senate and gave up his seat. And so it was clear that there'd be an open seat there-- or, not clear that there would be. Possibly. Reapportionment, as you know, is every 10 years. It's the second two years into each decade. So there was going to be reapportionment in 1992. And Mel called to say he wasn't running for a seat and wasn't sure there'd be a seat. But just to-- the whole thing. The Harman family moved full-time to Los Angeles. This was a project, guys. My older kids were-- one in college, here, and one on a school year abroad program. But I had little kids. Moved to LA full time, Became an LA resident again, which I'd given up-- don't ask-- to become a Washington DC resident. Why? And so, ran for Congress, in an open seat that was a lean Republican seat, and won. And that's how it happened. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Was it hard each time to run? CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Yeah. I mean, first of all, it's not each time. You just keep running. It's the perpetual campaign. You have no idea, this business of raising money-- maybe you do. How many of you've worked for members of Congress--in congressional campaigns? Ah. OK. How many of you raised money for members of Congress? One, two? Phil? Oh? Who knew? But it's grueling. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: It's hard. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Yeah. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Dialing for dollars. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: And you just keep doing it. And these races cost an absolute fortune. And so, somebody asked me once-- I had the little Congress pins. Somebody was looking at it and said, well, where do you get those? Where'd you get that? And I said, oh, it cost $2 million plus, every two years. You can have one too. Yeah, but it just never ends. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: And over the course of your service, it became worse. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Yeah. The campaign piece became much worse. So I was elected in 1992, the so-called "Year of the Woman." That is because the number of women in the House doubled from about 13 or 14 to 25 or 26. Guess what? As of last night-- and I haven't looked at what the split is-- there are 100 women in the House. That maybe is a bright light. Just maybe that will make some difference. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: That's great. That is great. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: But any rate, back in the day there were 25 or so women. And that was the year that two women were elected from California-- Boxer and Feinstein, who are still there. So the Year of the Woman lasted a year. In '94, Newt Gingrich came to power. And most of the women elected-- as I was-- in open seats lost in '94. You're most vulnerable in your first re-elect. And in my case, on election night, I was down about 250 votes. But there were 10,000 uncounted absentee votes. And this was a lean Republican seat. I can explain how I won in a lean Republican seat. But I knew this was going to be a bear. And then I would need a very good lawyer to help me. So I called one. I'm sorry, he went to Yale Law School, but-- DEAN MARTHA MINOW: It's OK. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: I knew him well. His name is David Boies. Good choice, right, guys? Everybody know who he is? He litigated the Prop 8 case. And I said, well, David, I think every ballot, everything is going to matter. And I'm sure there's going to be a challenge, et cetera. And he said, I'll be out-- he had grown up in California. How about if I come out for two weeks, pro bono? Ah-ha. So he did. And at the end of two weeks, I won by 811 votes, out of 225,000 votes cast. And then my opponent, who had declared victory and flown back to Washington on the day after the election, and was running for class president in the Newt Gingrich class, challenged my race under something called the Federal Contest of Elections Act, which is a statute that's used to-- it's actually a form of torture. So it was a nine-month challenge. It was horrible. And finally-- I had already been certified as the winner, but finally she went away. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: So, how did you win in a lean Republican district? CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Ah, funny you should ask. OK, So open seats are when there's no incumbent, which are easier-- they're easier to win, than if there's-- well, it depends what the incumbent's like. But in many cases, the incumbent is better known, and on committees, and can argue he/she is crucially important and needs to stay there, and whatever. But open seat in this case, it was the Aerospace-- it still is-- Aerospace Center of California. I don't know how-- how many of you are lucky enough to be from California? Oh, perfect. How many of you are from the Los Angeles area? Well, that's not enough. So this district, which actually technically was not where I grew up--I grew up next to UCLA, in West LA. But this was along the coast-- the California coast, just south of Santa Monica. And it's where the whole aerospace industry is in California, and where our intelligence satellites are made-- almost all of them. Huge aerospace base. And there's something called the LA Air Force Base, which doesn't look like an Air Force base. It doesn't have runways. It's the procurement arm for missiles and satellites. And it is the economic engine for this area. So if you don't anything about aerospace, what are you doing there? So at any rate, I knew something about aerospace. I had been Special-- I left that out of my little resume-- Special Counsel to the Defense Department for a couple years also, back along the way. And so five Democrats were running and seven Republicans were running in this lean Republican seat. And of the five Democrats, I was the only one who had any experience with defense and aerospace issues. So that wasn't hard. And the winner of the Republican primary-- seven people-- was a woman who had been on the LA City council and was very well-known. But one, she didn't know much about aerospace. And two, she was anti-choice. And that was the year-- just strain to remember. Most of you weren't born. But it was the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings-- you've probably heard about this-- and choice was a motivating issue. And one of the other people in the Republican primary, who fortunately lost, was Maureen Reagan, daughter of Ronald Reagan. And she was-- she sadly died of cancer a few years ago, very nice woman who was a pro-choice Republican. There used to be people who were pro-choice Republicans. And if she had won the primary, she would have beat me, even though I knew more about aerospace. So I won with this coalition of pro-choice Republican women who became Republicans for Harman-- and I kept them all of the years-- and aerospace executives, all of whom supported me, because nobody else knew nothing about aerospace. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: So let's turn to defense and national security. The country obviously has been through some real challenges. Certainly 9/11 is simply one of those challenges. ISIS, you and I have talked about before. But could you, first of all, help everybody understand, what is the role that the experts in Congress play in foreign policy? And what are the top three issues that face us right now? CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Well, there's no rule book, really, for how this is all supposed to work. And one of the fun things that I'm doing in this seminar that you asked me to teach, that I'm having a ball, teaching-- DEAN MARTHA MINOW: So grateful. So grateful. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: --is talking tomorrow about authorization for war. And a guy named Jeff Smith, who used to be general counsel of the CIA, and has thought deeply about this, is going to be Skyped in. And by the way, at the Wilson Center in about three weeks, we're having a-- in fact, the day Congress comes back. Congress is coming back! [LAUGHTER] It's like Halloween! On November 12th. So that's-- maybe that's next-- that's next week! DEAN MARTHA MINOW: That's next week! CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: We're doing a panel on this. And Tim Kaine, who's a member of the Senate from Virginia, who's very outspoken-- DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Graduate of this school. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: and somebody named Jack Goldsmith--. anybody heard of Jack Goldsmith-- and a couple others are going to be on this panel, talking about this. But it's not-- it's not clear cut, what Congress's role is in foreign policy. I mean, Congress provides the money to make the government run and supposedly, overseas, how the money is spent. So some of that money goes for foreign policy. So Congress has an oversight role. But for a lot of reasons, the committee system was designed in the 19th century, so jurisdictions are confused. Some people in Congress really care about foreign policy. A lot don't. Voters don't. I mean, the polling always shows that 3%-- single digits of people care. And so, people campaign on other issues, and are better informed, in most cases, on other issues. So what should Congress's role in foreign policy be? I think it should be robust. It's an independent branch of government. It has the constitutional obligation to declare war. Again, what is war? And it has this oversight responsibility to be sure that funds are well spent. And I think Congress-- well, it's been the incredible shrinking Congress for every reason in the last decade, but especially on these issues. It's just totally AWOL. And I've been very upset about it. And so have some members in Congress been upset about it. And a little dance is going on now, where a number of members of Congress think-- and I strongly agree-- that the authorizations to use military force that Congress passed after 9/11 do not apply to what we are doing in the Middle East, and that we need a new AUMF and maybe one that's much more circumscribed, and that will sunset-- expire-- in a finite period of time, et cetera, et cetera. Some of these members in both parties have introduced some draft bills, including Tim Kaine. But at any rate, the dance that's going on is the President hasn't asked us to do this. He's only said he "welcomes" Congress doing this. My view is, forget about it. You're Congress. This is your obligation. Just do it. The President's not going to tell you not to do it. And I don't know why he hasn't asked. And I wish he would. And that is actually something I said to him personally, recently, when I was invited to a small dinner with him in the White House. But Congress should just do the responsible thing. And I don't think this issue is partisan. I mean, the bad guys aren't going to check our party registration before they blow us up. So we ought to think this through and come up with a responsible strategy to protect the country. And that is Congress's constitutional obligation. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: So how big a threat is ISIS? And how big a threat is Snowden? And how big a threat, really, are the threats that we don't know? "The unknown unknowns." CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: "The unknown unknowns." Oh, you're quoting Don Rumsfeld. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: I am. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Does everybody know him-- everybody remember him? "The unknown unknowns"? Yeah. How big a threat is ISIS? We don't know yet. And it's not the only threat. How big a threat is terrorism, and a bunch of groups that are loosely affiliated around the world? It's a big threat. And the biggest threat part of it is that a lot of people in this country are self-radicalizing by going on the internet and learning how to make pressure cooker bombs. Think the Boston Marathon. I know one of those guys went back to Russia. But they're self-radicalizing. They are persuaded by a social media campaign that is very effective, that is amplified by our media, which plays a lot of this stuff. Fortunately not beheadings, but it plays a lot of these arguments. And we, the strongest and most robust democracy and economy in history, don't have a good counter argument, which is pathetic. And so they have a kind of open field to put their arguments out. They're also, in some cases, reasonably skilled-- I mean some of these disaffected Baathists in Iraq are good generals, trained by Saddam Hussein himself. And they have never been included in the government that stood up after we deposed him. And they're disaffected. And so they're joining the bad guys, because there's not a good alternative there. So what am I saying with ISIL? We can't defeat threats like that just kinetically. We can't use drones only and knock off people. We have to win the argument. And we're doing a bad job so far of winning the argument. So that's kind of my ISIL comment. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Hearts and minds. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Yeah. And now Snowden. Snowden. I have nothing good to say about-- I have one good thing to say about Snowden. The one good thing I have to say about Snowden is that he has-- what he did has generated a big conversation about intelligence and surveillance. And we should have had that conversation way before Snowden, when these policies were enacted. One of the reasons we didn't have the conversation is that the Bush administration-- Bush 43 administration-- used the executive authority of the President-- Article II Commander-In-Chief Authorities-- to put in place most of these programs and cut out Congress. Now why does that matter? Well, when Congress is in the game-- especially if Congress has to legislate-- hearings are held, and there's a public conversation. And there's a chance for people to get a clue. Congress did get in the game late. In 2008, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended to cover the programs that are now-- DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Under discussion. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Yeah. Are under further discussion. So there was a debate. But not every everyone was clued in. Now everyone's clued in. I think that that outcome is good. I think what Snowden did was disgraceful. And I don't think he's a whistleblower. If he were a whistleblower, he could come back into this country and stand trial. I think there's a lot of sympathy for him here. I think he would get a fair trial. But he's not doing that. To remind, he left from Honolulu to go to China. And then he left from China to go to Russia. And I don't think either of those governments is really the kind of open government consistent with the beliefs that he says he has. And he not only took information about these programs that are now in the news, but he took our technology playbook, which, now that it's out there, is in the hands of bad guys. And I have no sympathy for that. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Makes us more vulnerable. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Yeah. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: I'm going to open up for questions and comments in a few minutes. But I have two more that I want to ask. You are, as I said before, a strong woman who supports strong women. That's not always the case. Do you care to comment? CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Eh, sort of. So Madeleine Albright, whom I love, has this marvelous line that there's a cold place in hell for women who don't help women. And a lot of women should be in hell, because in case you missed it-- some men don't support women or men either. But a lot of women make it-- or certainly back in my generation-- and then roll up the step ladder, because they're insecure, and they don't want other women to make it. It's just unacceptable. And I have really tried hard over a long career, so far, to help other women. And to hire women. And to make sure that I'm surrounded by the smartest people. How am I going to be smart if they're not smarter? And I'm not threatened by that. I don't know why I would be threatened by that. But unfortunately, that is not always true of women. And I'm glad you mentioned that, because it's a moral obligation-- I'm looking at all of you. Is anybody going to disappoint me? Hey, raise your hand if you're going to hell. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Well, thank you for your leadership, and your role model activity in that regard, in particular. And the last question I have-- and then come to the mics if you have a question that you'd like to ask. Should people go into elected office right now? CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Yes. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Why should they? CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Well, I left. I mean, you didn't ask me about that, Martha-- DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Well, I could-- CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: I'm in my-- I've just been reelected, by a large margin, to my ninth term in 2010, when a huge number of people lost and a huge number of Democrats lost. Big wipe-out year. Not quite as bad as this one, but up there. But I-- after a primary from hell, a very far left candidate called me a traitor and a spy, and said I should be in jail, which may be true, but anyway. And the general election from hell Tea Party candidate-- I was a traitor and a spy and I should be in jail, and then I win. And Congress is in the lame duck session-- it's so well-named-- where it's attempting to do the work it has not done at all in two years. And it's Christmas time. It's like, December 20th. And the headhunters for the Wilson Center call. And they had-- Lee Hamilton held the job I now have, for 12 years. He left Congress. Most of you probably know who he is. He was an enormously impressive-- still is-- man from Indiana who chaired the House Foreign Affairs committee, and was co-chair of the 9/11 commission, and just scrupulously bipartisan, probative, fair, impressive. Anyway, he left in the mid '90s. And he retired, announced he was retiring in 2010. And I learned later, a number of extraordinary people were interviewed to succeed him. And why none of them was chosen, I have no idea. But so, the search reopened. I get this phone call from the headhunter firm while I'm in Congress in this lame duck session in which nothing's happening-- perfect timing. Would you be interested in applying? And I went home and asked my late husband, Sidney Harman, well, what do you think? (EXCITED VOICE) Do it! Get out of there! You work in a pit! He was hilarious. And I said, well, honey, I haven't even been interviewed! Oh, you'll get the job. (EXCITED VOICE) Do it! Anyway, so I got the job. And I decided, after some soul searching, because people had just put themselves out big time to help elect me, that I should do it and because the opportunity to be in the living memorial to our only PhD President, Woodrow Wilson, which is a huge think tank in downtown Washington-- DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Chartered by Congress! CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Chartered by Congress, presidentially-appointed board, has existed for 40 years, 150 world-class scholars a year, 10 geographic programs-- I mean, it's an intellectual candy store. Fabulous. Maybe only second to this place, which I truly love. I mean, it was just enormous. And so I walk out, and the place goes to hell. I mean, I did it. No, I didn't do it. But there isn't a person up there who doesn't think my timing was impeccable. And it really has gotten seriously worse since 2011. Why should people run now? How is this place going to change, unless people who seriously want to solve problems join it? It's a hard thing to do, because the process favors folks who don't seriously want to solve problems. In most states, states set the time and manner of elections. So the primary system varies by state. And California, of course, has done the right thing by establishing citizen commissions to draw the congressional lines, and also a jungle primary, where everybody runs against everybody. These things promote the-- DEAN MARTHA MINOW: sensible people. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: campaigns, and election of sensible people in both parties. And most states don't do that. So most states have a very partisan primary process where, to get elected in either party, you have to toe the line with a very committed, single-issue group of voters. That's not a good recipe for doing deals. And so most states are like that. And if you run in a state like that, it's very hard. Also, with unlimited money in campaigns-- I'm rabid about how wrongheaded I think are the recent Supreme Court decisions. But with unlimited money in campaigns, it's very hard for people. So, get in the game and change the game would be my advice. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Great. OK. Come ask questions. I'll keep asking, but here's another one. You've recently joined the Commission on Presidential Debates. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Ah, do you know who's on that? Or was on that? Has anyone ever heard of Newton Minow? DEAN MARTHA MINOW: So my dad is on that. But um-- CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: He's one of the youngest people on the planet. He's what, 89? DEAN MARTHA MINOW: 89. Yeah. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: He's only 89! DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Right. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Yeah. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: But what is the value of debates? What role do the debates play, whether in the presidential elections or other elections? CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Well, I continue to think that there is room for civil discours, and that what people's opinions are matter, and that presidential debates-- far more than ads, which are sadly often attack ads-- are a useful way for people to learn about who the candidates are. And it really matters who the President is. So if the Presidential Debate Commission sets up the debate system wisely-- and there always are issues about third parties, and locations of these debates, and rules for the debate-- I think that helps people. First of all, it encourages candidates to be better. And hopefully, it gets voters exposed to which candidates they think are better. So as a good government tool, I think this is it. I also was flattered that two Democrats and two Republicans were asked to join. The Republicans were Mitch Daniels, who is a very capable former governor of Indiana, who's now the president of-- DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Purdue. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Purdue. And Olympia Snowe, who I gather was around here last week. And the Democrats were Leon Panetta-- anyone ever heard of him? And Jane. So I thought that was cool. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Pretty darn good. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: So I did it. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Please come and say who you are. [? CHRIS MIRASOL: Hi, ?] my name is Chris [? Mirasol. ?] I'm a 1L. I was wondering, as a head of a think tank-- and we've heard a lot about think tanks in the news recently-- I was wondering what you think the role of a think tank is in DC now. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Ah, well, there are different kinds of think tanks in DC. There are some on the far left, and some on the far right. The Wilson Center tries to stay right in the middle. And I think that is a huge market opportunity because Congress is so polarized. We have convening space where we can discuss things like authorization for war in a balanced way, and get enormous attention. We also cannot lobby. That's not part of our mandate. But we can frame issues and suggest some actionable ideas for policy makers. And there isn't much competition in Washington for what we do. LAWRENCE SLUSKY: Hi. Thank you for coming to speak with us today. My name is Lawrence Slusky. I'm a 1L. I really think it's lucky that we have you here the morning after a major election, especially with the results that we've had-- CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: I'd rather be here than in Washington DC this morning, so thank you. LAWRENCE SLUSKY: I was hoping you could talk a little bit more about how you see things going on in Congress, especially now that the Republicans control both chambers, and we still have a Democrat in the White House, and how you see the next two years evolving. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Well, I don't know yet. I think it's-- Obama has made a good move to invite the leaders of Congress down to visit tomorrow. That's good. I hope it's not just the leader-leaders. I mean, I think that that conversation is very stale, the current elected leaders of Congress. There are no moving parts. Nobody does anything. I mean, one actual-- with the possible exception, perhaps, of Mitch McConnell, who gave a gracious speech last night. I heard it, and good for him. But I think Obama's move ought to be to reach for more of Congress, not all of Congress, but be strategic about it. There are opinion leaders in both parties, sort of in the middle to lower ranks. I also think he should make a huge effort to get to know the newbies, who haven't yet been tainted by the place. Maybe there's some possibility for oxygen there. I mean, he has to invest-- he, Obama. He can't just have a dinner, check the box. He's got to invest in getting to know these people. Woodrow Wilson never served in Congress. I think I mentioned he's our only PhD President. He wrote his PhD thesis on Congress. And when he was President, he spent hours and hours up there meeting people. And all of you have seen the movie Lincoln. You get what happened, to get the 13th Amendment passed. And you've seen the-- I hope-- this fabulous play on Lyndon Johnson and read the Caro books. You don't get-- what you put in is what you get out. And I think Obama's commitment to getting to know and work with Congress has been inadequate. And he ought to challenge the leadership in both sides, on both sides, to do stuff and step up, and sit there-- up there-- and really engage with them, and build the relationships. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Does split-party governance offer more or less chance for actually passing legislation? CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: It depends who's in the parties. I think this is unknown. I mean, if the Republicans-- this has been in the news, you all know this-- want to elect a president 2016, they've got to have some kind of a record. So they're going to want to try to do something. The Tea Party agenda is not going to be the agenda that's enacted by Congress. First of all, it might not pass-- might pass. But then Obama will veto it, and they don't have a veto-proof majority to pass anything over his veto. And I doubt that any President-- any candidate will be elected President on the Tea Party agenda. And again, I think there are some aspects of the Tea Party agenda that are OK. It certainly should be considered. I'm not ruling any group out. But doing deals means no group will be fully satisfied. And you sit there and you figure out, what's the right way forward on immigration? What's the right way forward on trade promotion authority, so that we can enact these major trade regimes with Europe and Asia, which are huge foreign policy tools. I was always a pro-trade Democrat. Got me in some trouble. But I believe in trade. I think it helps actual working people. It depends what the trade regime is. But there's that. There's authorization for war. There are amendments to the health care law-- DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Corporate tax CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: that are responsible. There's tax reform-- DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Environment. Energy. There's a lot of stuff. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Climate change. Read Tom Friedman this morning. Brilliant article in the New York Times about what the big challenges are. Climate change is way up there. And there are tools that could be used that would actually get Republican support, like a carbon tax. I know it's a "tax." Oh, my god, it's a tax. But Ernie Moniz, whom some of you may know, who's the Secretary of Energy-- brilliant guy from MIT-- says that for a $10 tax, you get a 35% reduction in carbon emissions. And the $10 could be spent on tax relief-- imagine that-- for, pick a group, in order to get support for the initiative. So, I mean there are ways forward that would-- and business leaders want certainty. So yes, it's a tax, but it actually might be a good mechanism to change behavior, to save our planet. Just thought that might be relevant. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Yes. JOSH STIEFEL: Hi, Congresswoman. My name is Josh Stiefel. I'm a second year public policy student at the Kennedy School. You mentioned briefly the divide between policy and politics in DC. I think there's only one former congressman in the Department of Defense-- Secretary McHugh. Can you talk about how you see ways for bridging that divide between policy wonks and politicos? Is it necessary to create channels for policy folks to get into politics? Is it necessary to get politics folks into policy positions? And how do you see reconciliation? CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Well, it's a good question. I mean, I always thought I was in Congress to help enact good policy. And on the walls of my office at the Wilson Center are eight laws where I played a major role in designing, drafting, and getting them enacted-- including intelligence reform, the big 2004 law. And I always thought that good policy is good politics. If you can execute, if you can explain a complicated subject of relevance to your constituents, and show them that you know how to move forward, that works. That's kind of fallen off, because the paradigm in Congress now is that you're better off not working with anybody, but blaming the other side for not solving the problem. Both sides do it. If you can say it's their fault-- of course, it's not my fault-- they're the ones stalling the agenda, then you cut the 30-second spot making them look bad. And I think that is a tragedy. So I guess I don't think there's a clear answer for that. I think some people in Congress are good at policy, and serious about it. You mentioned John McHugh. He's a Republican from upper New York State. We served together on the House Armed Services Committee 1,000 years ago. He's a smart, good guy. I don't remember how he got appointed. I think it was in the Bush administration. And they kept him, but I don't know if that's true. But he's still there. And he's one of the rare stories about a guy who's serious about policy, actually, in Congress, getting an administration job. That's true. So I don't think there's automatically a divide. I think if you're interested in politics, and you're a smart policy guy, you may have a leg up. If enough of you all run for politics, and you're good at-- I mean, it's out of fashion right now, but it could be in fashion again. [? BANKS: Hi, ?] my name is [? Banks. ?] I'm an ALM student. And I have two questions. First one is, I read one of your articles in the Los Angeles Times about the genocide fight between Turkey and Armenia. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Oh, yes. [? BANKS: And ?] I want to ask, do you still have the same opinion about this? And the second question is, you talk about problems in the Middle Eastern area. And do you think Turkey being the negotiator will be a solution? CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: OK. Well, I got in a lot of trouble about the Armenian Genocide resolution in Congress. It is something that has passed Congress twice before I served there. And I actually think there was an Armenian Genocide. So that wasn't my issue. And there is a huge number of Armenians who live in Southern California. I, in the early part of this century, was very impressed by the role that Turkey was playing-- Turkey is playing less of a role now, in my view-- in trying to help broker some sensible solutions in the Middle East. And I was-- I stopped in Turkey on my way back to Washington, and met with Prime Minister Erdogan and had a private conversation with him, where he brought up this resolution and said, we in Turkey don't understand why Congress, for the third time, has to pass a resolution condemning Armenian Genocide. We're trying to play a positive role in the Middle East. You can dispute this or not. And we are insulted by this effort to do it again. I was a cosponsor of the resolution. I didn't take my name off the resolution. But when I came back, I wrote a letter to the then-chairman of the-- or chairman, I think, of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Tom Lantos from California and said, you know, maybe we should delay bringing this up again. That's what I did. The end. For that, I was picketed mercilessly for a couple of years by the Armenian community. And the chant was, "Hypocrite, liar, Holocaust denier." And so, I mean, politics is politics. I'm telling you what happened. That was a little painful for my late father to hear, who was a refugee from Nazi Germany. But hey, you know, it's a free country. At any rate, what do I think now? I think there was a genocide. I don't have a different view of that. I think Turkey's role has become less constructive, for a variety of reasons. Would I have the same advice now? I don't know. I would have to study it. But I think there are, right now, more important issues in the Middle East-- you asked me about that-- that deserve urgent attention. And I'm very disappointed that the leaders in Israel and Palestine aren't taking more aggressive steps to agree on a two-state solution. I think that is an enormous lost opportunity. SARAH GONSKI: I'm Sarah Gonski. I'm a 3L here. We've talked a lot today about dysfunction in Congress. And it's become sort of trendy for people to write op-ed articles and things proposing whether it's one-subject bills, or campaign finance reform, or gerrymandering, [? redistricting ?] stuff. A lot of those are outsider opinions. I'm just curious, from you being inside the walls for that long, what's the sort of top two or three things that you and colleagues from Congress kind of float around, from inside the organization, as, if these things were true, then maybe things would be a little bit better around here? CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Well, that's a very thoughtful question. A lot of what Congress does, and a lot of what's voted on, are basically press releases. Efforts designed to make the other side look bad. It's tragic. I mean, it's a broken business model. What do the serious people think about and talk about? I think the serious people in there are serious people in both political parties, and jerks in both political parties. What do they think about and talk about? They talk about, think about making the place work again. I mean, people have killed themselves to get there. It's not a walk in the park to get elected to Congress, especially the way I did it, moving back to where I grew up. I'd never run for anything, except junior high school treasurer, which I lost. It was hard. And when you have families-- four kids, an inconvenienced husband-- it's huge. And you're commuting across the country. So you'd like to work someplace where you have some work satisfaction. So that's, I think, the biggest conversation, is how we are going to make this place work? I give the women higher marks than the men for trying to make that happen. One of my very closest friends in Congress is not in my party. And she got reelected last night. And her name is Susan Collins. I think she's extraordinarily gifted. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: Senator from Maine. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Senator from Maine. And she has been a ringleader in the Senate, pulling the women together, and some men, to be problem solvers. So that's, I think, number one. On issues, it depends where you're from. But I think most people would think that the institution should be capable of immigration reform. It's a big deal. It really is fundamental to what kind of country we are. And tax reform. And maybe these are just my faves. But I also think-- and responsible amendments to a health care law, which was passed to get enough votes, but which has some mistakes in it that should be corrected. Those would be three that I think most people there think should be addressed. Is the institution capable of doing that right now? Uh, not so much. EMILY HOGAN: Emily Hogan. I'm a 2L from Manhattan Beach. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Ahh! Did you vote for me? EMILY HOGAN: I did, of course! CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: You're my favorite person here. EMILY HOGAN: That's what I was going for! So, we as 1Ls now at HLS have to take a course called Legislation and Regulation, where we spend a lot of time learning how judges sort of construct how they think Congress passes laws. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: (LAUGHS) What they mean? EMILY HOGAN: Yeah. And so I'm wondering, as an actual former member of Congress, if you were ever writing a bill, if you were thinking about judicial review of what you were writing, or if some of those things seem sort of abstract, once you've learned them in law school. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN: Actually, I have a great story. So, I'm this baby legislative assistant working for Senator John Tunney in the '70s. And this was back in the day, right after the Clean Air and the Clean Water Acts had passed-- you know, our cornerstone environmental laws. Remember, Richard Nixon was President. His presidency was flawed, and he was totally paranoid. But actually, environmental law advanced more under him than anybody else, I think. I think that's fair. So my first little job for Tunney was as his Environmental LA, about which I knew almost nothing. And the next area of environmental law was noise pollution-- serious issue, can cause enormous hearing damage, et cetera. So, he-- long story how I negotiated the opportunity for him to manage the basic noise pollution law, but I did. And in order to get it through our committee, I had to make some compromises with some industry groups. One was the Air Transport Association, which represents the airline industry. And the deals that I made-- I was the staffer doing this-- upset the committee staff, working for the chairman of the committee, who was then Ed Muskie. And I know those deals were essential to getting the law in a position where it could get reported from committee and considered on the floor. So I dug in and said, we have to make these changes. The committee staff said, if you do that, we will refuse to work on the report on the bill. So I said, OK. And there I was, age 27 or whatever, pulling an all-nighter, writing a committee report by myself in Tunney's office. I mean, this is not how you write a committee report. And it got to the part about preemption. And the issue was, did we preempt state laws? And I knew I had to fudge on that thing. So I-- don't-- I said, the committee does not intend to address preemption. That was what I came up with, by myself. The law gets on the floor of the Senate, and it passes. I mean the bill, it passes. The last law to pass Congress in 1972 or 1973 or something was the Noise Pollution Control Act. And a guy named Mike Mansfield, who was then the Senate Majority Leader, called it a legislative miracle. And Tunney will tell you to this day that it was the high point of his legislative career. So, then comes the litigation about what did this law preempt-- state law? I mean, this is a great legal question. It just shows you-- maybe I should-- whatever. It goes to the Supreme Court. And Warren Christopher is arguing the case for the airline industry. And they want there to be preemption, because they don't want state laws, a confused number of state laws, to make their life harder. So Chris is arguing in the Supreme Court something about the bill's author, or the committee report must have meant that there was preemption. He took my non-comment, and skewed it, and he won. So, you know hey! This is my-- I mean, I think that's exactly what you're asking me. Was I thinking about the Supreme Court? No. I was thinking about how was I going to get through the night and not be laughed out of the room. But it was amazing. It was truly amazing. Just one PS, Steve Breyer, as you all know, worked for Ted Kennedy in the Senate. And he's asked this question often. And because he had legislative experience, he's very sensitive to this in a way that numbers of members of the Supreme Court or not. DEAN MARTHA MINOW: We are so grateful to you for being here today, and indeed teaching the course and being our Klinsky lecturer. Thank you so much. [APPLAUSE]


Early life and education

Harman during the MSC 2017
Harman during the MSC 2017

Harman was born Jane Margaret Lakes in New York City, the daughter of Lucille (née Geier) and Adolf N. Lakes.[3] Her father was born in Poland and escaped from Nazi Germany in 1935;[4] he worked as a medical doctor. Her mother was born in the United States and was the first one in her family to receive college education. Her maternal grandparents immigrated from Russia.[5] Harman's family moved to Los Angeles, California when she was 4 and there she attended Los Angeles public schools, graduating from University High School in 1962. She received a bachelor's degree in government with honors from Smith College in 1966 and graduated Magna Cum Laude and served as president of the Smith College Young Democrats.[6] Harman continued her studies at Harvard Law School, where she made Phi Beta Kappa and earned her Juris Doctor degree in 1969.[7]


Early career

After graduating from law school, Harman - then known as Jane Lakes - married future NOAA administrator Richard A. Frank in 1969, and they had two children. They spent a short time in Switzerland and then she worked for two years as an associate with the law firm Surrey, Karasik and Morse in Washington, DC. She began her political career by serving on the staff of Senator John V. Tunney, and as his staff director from 1972-73. In 1973, Tunney named her his chief counsel and staff director for the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights. During this time she also taught at Georgetown. When Tunney lost re-election in 1976, Harman - then known as Jane Lakes Frank - joined the Carter White House where she served as special counsel to the Department of Defense, and as Deputy Secretary of the Cabinet. She made headlines in 1978, when she quit to spend more time with her children. She and her husband, Richard Frank divorced the same year.[8][9] Two years later, she married Sidney Harman, who she had met in the White House when he was her first husband's boss.[10][11] Through the 1980s, Jane Harman worked as a corporate lawyer and as a director of her husband's company, Harman International Industries.[9]

U.S. Representative, 1993 to 1999

Harman was first elected to Congress in 1992 and became the first Smith College graduate to be elected to Congress. From 1993 to 1999, Harman represented the 36th, serving in the 103rd, 104th, and 105th Congresses. In 1994, she barely survived reelection in a heavily Republican year, winning by 812 votes over Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor Susan Brooks.

1998 California gubernatorial campaign

Harman did not run for the 106th United States Congress in 1998, instead entering the 1998 California gubernatorial race. It was during that race that she was called "the best Republican in the Democratic Party".[12]

After losing the Democratic nomination to Lieutenant Governor Gray Davis, she briefly taught public policy and international relations at UCLA as a Regents' Professor before running for and winning her old congressional seat in the 2000 election.

U.S. Representative, 2000 to 2011

Harman's portrait during her second term as US Rep
Harman's portrait during her second term as US Rep

Harman narrowly won her old seat in 2000, defeating Republican incumbent Steven T. Kuykendall, and was easily re-elected in 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010.

Representing the aerospace center of California during her nine terms in Congress, she served on all the major security committees: six years on Armed Services, eight years on Intelligence, and eight on Homeland Security. She made numerous congressional fact-finding missions to hotspots around the world, including North Korea, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Guantanamo Bay. During her long public career, Harman has been recognized as a national expert at the nexus of security and public policy issues. She received the Defense Department Medal for Distinguished Service in 1998, the CIA Agency Seal Medal in 2007, and the CIA Director's Award and the Director of National Intelligence Distinguished Public Service Medal in 2011.

2009 wiretap/AIPAC allegations

In 2009, it was revealed NSA wiretaps reportedly intercepted a 2005 phone call between Harman and an agent of the Israeli government, in which Harman allegedly agreed to lobby the Justice Department to reduce or drop criminal charges against two employees of AIPAC in exchange for increased support for Harman's campaign to chair the House Intelligence Committee.[13] The NSA transcripts reportedly recorded Harman ending the phone call after saying, "this conversation doesn't exist."[14] It was reported that Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General at the time of the phone call, blocked Justice Department lawyers from continuing the investigation into Harman (in spite of the alleged crime) because the Bush administration "needed Jane" to support their warrantless wiretapping program, which was soon to be revealed to the public by The New York Times.[15]

Harman denied the allegations, and called for the government to release the full transcript of the wire-tapped conversation, something they never did.[16] In June 2009, Harman received a letter from the Justice Department declaring her "neither a subject nor a target of an ongoing investigation by the Criminal Division." Though the espionage charges were later dropped on the two employees from AIPAC, against the wishes of the FBI, Harman did not become chair of the House intelligence committee.[17]

Political positions

Harman is on most issues a liberal, earning a 95% rating from the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action. On intelligence and defense issues, she tends to be a moderate. For example, she was one of many Democrats who supported the Iraq War.[18] Harman has combined a moderate stance on economic, trade, and foreign policy issues with a more liberal stance on social issues. For instance, while voting with Republicans to restrict rules on personal bankruptcy, for lawsuit reform, and to abolish the estate tax—as well as on protecting those defense contractors with business interests in her congressional district—Harman voted against the ban on partial-birth abortions, lawsuits against gun manufacturers, the Defense of Marriage Act, and banning indecent broadcasting. Harmon's California Senate Bill 1264, signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, effective January 1, 2010, rendered most no-contest clauses unenforceable. The many loopholes in prior no-contest clauses caused more court confusion and expense.

Armenian Genocide

Harman was a co-sponsor of the Armenian Genocide recognition resolution bill in 2007. However, while still cosponsoring the bill, she wrote a letter to House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Tom Lantos urging him to delay a floor vote on the legislation.[19] Her argument was that while the genocide deserved recognition, it was not a good time to embarrass Turkey, given that country's role in moderating extremism in the Middle East.[20]

Other activities

Harman is currently a member of the Defense Policy Board, the State Department Foreign Affairs Policy Board, the Director of National Intelligence’s Senior Advisory Group, and the Homeland Security Advisory Council. She was a member of the CIA External Advisory Board from 2011 to 2013. Harman is a Trustee of the Aspen Institute and the University of Southern California.

Personal life

Harman's first marriage was to Richard Frank, in 1969, with whom she had two children.[21] Her second marriage was to audio pioneer and multi-millionaire Sidney Harman, who served from 1977 to 1979 as the Undersecretary of the Department of Commerce in the Carter administration before repurchasing the company he founded, Harman International Industries, and later taking it public.[22] She also had two children with him.[21] She has four grandchildren.

Asked in 2010 about a possible conflict of interest, Sidney Harman said: "We’ve been married for over 30 years. I’ve never told her how to run the government and she’s never told me how to run the business (Harman International). That’s absolutely fundamental to us."[23] He retired in 2008 from Harman Industries, purchased Newsweek Magazine in 2010, and founded the Academy for Polymathic Study at USC before he died in April 2011.[22] Harman maintains a residence in Venice Beach, California.

See also


  1. ^ "Harman to resign from House". Retrieved September 26, 2018.
  2. ^ "The Fix - Jane Harman to resign from Congress". Washington Post. February 7, 2011.
  3. ^ Current Women Members Archived May 9, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
  4. ^ Wilgoren, Jodi (May 5, 1998). "Harman: A Focus for Her Ambitions". Los Angeles Times.
  5. ^ "jane harman". Retrieved September 26, 2018.
  6. ^ "Jane Harman - Jewish Women's Archive". Retrieved September 26, 2018.
  7. ^ "Harman, Jane L. – Biographical Information". Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. 2007. Retrieved August 31, 2008.
  8. ^ "Personality Glimpses". The Salinas Journal. June 2, 1978. Retrieved May 8, 2018.
  9. ^ a b "HARMAN, Jane L". Retrieved May 7, 2018.
  10. ^ "Women in Congress, 1917-2006". Government Printing Office. September 26, 2018. Retrieved September 26, 2018 – via Google Books.
  11. ^ Stone, Kurt F. (2010). The Jews of Capitol Hill: A Compendium of Jewish Congressional Members. p. 518. Retrieved May 8, 2018.
  12. ^ Skelton, George (March 23, 1998). "California and the West: In the Ring, With Contenders for Governor". Los Angeles Times. p. 3. Retrieved June 23, 2013.
  13. ^ "Jane Harman's Wiretapped Conversations". The Washington Post. April 21, 2009. Retrieved February 27, 2014.
  14. ^ "Major scandal erupts involving Rep. Jane Harman, Alberto Gonzales and AIPAC". Salon. April 20, 2009. Retrieved February 27, 2014.
  15. ^ "The Danger of NSA Spying on Members of Congress". The Atlantic. January 6, 2014. Retrieved February 27, 2014.
  16. ^ Herszenhorn, David M. (April 22, 2009). "Pelosi Now Remembers Harman Wiretap". The New York Times. Retrieved February 27, 2014.
  17. ^ "Justice Department Not Targeting Harman". Roll Call. June 25, 2009. Retrieved February 27, 2014.
  18. ^ "Pelosi, Harman Have Long History". The Washington Post. April 23, 2009. Retrieved April 25, 2009.
  19. ^ "House Rep. Flip-Flops On Armenian Genocide Stance". CBS. Associated Press. October 10, 2007.
  20. ^ Healey, John (October 5, 2007). "Harman flip-flops on Armenian genocide resolution". LA Times.
  21. ^ a b Jane, Harman,. "Jane Harman Papers, 1960-1998 (ongoing) (bulk 1993-1998) Finding Aid". Retrieved September 26, 2018.
  22. ^ a b Shapiro, Taylor (2011). Arts Patron, Industrialist Sidney Harman Dies At 92 The Washington Post. April 13, 2011.
  23. ^ Vega, Tanzina (2010). Audio Pioneer Buys Newsweek. The New York Times. August 2, 2010.

External links

U.S. House of Representatives
Preceded by
George Brown
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from California's 36th congressional district

Succeeded by
Steven Kuykendall
Preceded by
Steven Kuykendall
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from California's 36th congressional district

Succeeded by
Janice Hahn
Academic offices
Preceded by
Lee Hamilton
President of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
This page was last edited on 24 August 2019, at 03:15
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.