Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 87 (Thursday, June 29, 2006)

[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 87 (Thursday, June 29, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H4875-H4890]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SUPPORTING INTELLIGENCE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS TO TRACK
TERRORISTS AND TERRORIST FINANCES

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 896, I call up
the resolution (H. Res. 895) supporting intelligence and law
enforcement programs to track terrorists and terrorist finances
conducted consistent with Federal law and with appropriate
Congressional consultation and specifically condemning the disclosure
and publication of classified information that impairs the
international fight against terrorism and needlessly exposes Americans
to the threat of further terror attacks by revealing a crucial method
by which terrorists are traced through their finances, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:

H. Res. 895

Whereas the United States is currently engaged in a global
war on terrorism to prevent future attacks against American
civilian and military interests at home and abroad;
Whereas intelligence programs are essential to gathering
critical information necessary for identifying, disrupting,
and capturing terrorists before they carry out further
attacks;
Whereas there is a national security imperative for
maintaining the secrecy of our intelligence capabilities from
our potential enemies;
Whereas effective intelligence depends on cooperation with
foreign governments and individuals who trust the United
States to protect their confidences;
Whereas the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of
the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction found
that ``the scope of damage done to our collection
capabilities from media disclosures of classified information
is well documented. Hundreds of serious press leaks have
significantly impaired U.S. capabilities against our hardest
targets'';
Whereas the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive
intelligence information inflicts significant damage to
United States activities in the global war on terrorism by
assisting terrorists in developing countermeasures to evade
United States intelligence capabilities, costs the United
States taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost
capabilities, and ultimately endangers American lives;
Whereas the 1998 disclosure of classified information
regarding efforts to monitor the communications of Usama bin
Laden eliminated a valuable source of intelligence
information on al Qaeda's activities, an example of the
significant damage caused by unauthorized disclosures;
Whereas following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks,
Congress passed the USA PATRIOT ACT, which included anti-
terrorist financing provisions that bolster Federal
Government and law enforcement capabilities to find and
disrupt the financiers of terrorist organizations;
Whereas following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks,
the President, with the support of Congress, directed the
Federal Government to use all appropriate measures to
identify, track, and pursue not only those persons who commit
terrorist acts here and abroad, but also those who provide
financial or other support for terrorist activity;
Whereas consistent with this directive, the United States
Government initiated a lawfully classified Terrorist Finance
Tracking Program and the Secretary of the Treasury issued
lawful subpoenas to gather information on suspected
international terrorists through bank transaction
information;
Whereas under the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, the
United States Government only reviews information as part of
specific terrorism investigations and based on intelligence
that leads to targeted searches, such as searches of a
specific individual or entity;
Whereas the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program is firmly
rooted in sound legal authority based on Executive Orders and
statutory mandates, including the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act of 1977 and the United Nations
Participation Act;
Whereas the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program consists of
the appropriate and limited use of transaction information
while maintaining respect for individual privacy;
Whereas the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program has rigorous
safeguards and protocols to protect privacy in that record
searches must identify a terrorism-related basis, and
regular, independent audits of the program have confirmed
that the United States Government has consistently observed
the established safeguards and protocols;
Whereas appropriate Members of Congress, including the
members of the Committees on Intelligence of the Senate and
House of Representatives, have been briefed on the Terrorist
Finance Tracking Program and have conducted oversight of the
Program;
Whereas the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program has
successfully provided vital intelligence in support of the
global war on terrorism, including information leading to the
capture of Hambali, the Operations Chief of Jemaah Islamiyah,
an al Qaeda affiliate, who masterminded the 2002 nightclub
bombing in Indonesia that killed over 200 people;
Whereas the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program has helped
authorities uncover terrorist financiers worldwide and find
Uzair Paracha, an al Qaeda money launderer operating in the
United States;
Whereas Congress has authorized the Secretary of the
Treasury to explore the implementation of systems to review
all cross-border wire transactions;
Whereas the bipartisan 9/11 Commission recommended that
``Vigorous efforts to track terrorist financing must remain
front and center in U.S. counterterrorism efforts'';
Whereas persons in positions of trust and responsibility
granted access to highly sensitive intelligence programs
violated their solemn obligations not to disclose classified
information and made unauthorized disclosures regarding the
program;
Whereas at some point before June 23, 2006, classified
information regarding the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program
was illegally and improperly disclosed to members of the news
media;

[[Page H4876]]

Whereas beginning on June 23, 2006, certain media
organizations knowingly published details about a classified
program that the United States Government had legally and
with appropriate safeguards used to track the financing of
terrorism, including specific intelligence gathering methods;
Whereas the Administration, Members of Congress, and the
bipartisan chairmen of the 9/11 Commission requested that
media organizations not disclose details of the Terrorist
Finance Tracking Program so that terrorists would not shift
their financing to channels in the international financial
system that are less easily observed by intelligence
agencies;
Whereas the disclosure of the Terrorist Finance Tracking
Program has unnecessarily complicated efforts by the United
States Government to prosecute the war on terror and may have
placed the lives of Americans in danger both at home and in
many regions of the world, including active-duty armed forces
in Iraq and Afghanistan;
Whereas persons who have access to classified information,
or who have classified information passed onto them, have a
responsibility to the people of the United States not to
endanger the populace through their exercise of the right to
freedom of speech; and
Whereas Federal statutes criminalize the unauthorized
disclosure and publication of sensitive intelligence
information, regardless of the source: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) supports efforts to identify, track, and pursue
suspected foreign terrorists and their financial supporters
by tracking terrorist money flows and uncovering terrorist
networks here and abroad, including through the use of the
Terrorist Finance Tracking Program;
(2) finds that the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program has
been conducted in accordance with all applicable laws,
regulations, and Executive Orders, that appropriate
safeguards and reviews have been instituted to protect
individual civil liberties, and that Congress has been
appropriately informed and consulted for the duration of the
Program and will continue its oversight of the Program;
(3) condemns the unauthorized disclosure of classified
information by those persons responsible and expresses
concern that the disclosure may endanger the lives of
American citizens, including members of the Armed Forces, as
well as individuals and organizations that support United
States efforts; and
(4) expects the cooperation of all news media organizations
in protecting the lives of Americans and the capability of
the government to identify, disrupt, and capture terrorists
by not disclosing classified intelligence programs such as
the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.

{time} 1715

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 896, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Frank) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to present to the House for our
consideration H. Res. 895, a resolution that expresses the sense of the
House supporting intelligence and law enforcement programs that track
terrorists and terrorist financing. Additionally, the resolution finds
that the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program was conducted lawfully and
with all due protections of civil liberties. The resolution condemns
the unauthorized disclosure of classified information and states that
the House expects the cooperation of news media organizations in these
matters.
Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution that every Member can and should
support. We are at war. Thanks to the great job being done by our
members of the U.S. military and law enforcement, Americans feel safe
to go about their daily lives, but we are still in fact at war. We
depend on classified programs and classified information in order to
successfully prosecute that war.
While there is the physical war that is being fought, of course
another critical front in this war is terrorist financing, and that is
where we focus our debate today. It is critical, because where
terrorists place and spend their money is one of the best indicators
about where the terrorists are located, who they are, and where they
may strike again.
The editors at the New York Times would do well to reread the
editorial they published on September 24 about 2 weeks after September
11, 2001. In part, it reads: ``The Bush administration is preparing new
laws to help track terrorists through their money laundering activity
and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known
terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the
recruitment of specialized investigators, and greater cooperation with
foreign banking authorities.'' The editorial concludes, ``If America is
going to wage a new kind of war against terrorism, it must act on all
fronts, including the financial one.''
All of that activity that was recommended by the New York Times so
soon after 9/11 was taking place and was being done with an
extraordinary amount of international financial cooperation by the U.S.
Treasury and its Terrorist Finance Tracking Program. The program was
being conducted in accordance with current U.S. and international law,
with executive orders, with outside audits, and with all proper care
being given to individual liberty. I need to add that it was also being
conducted with significant success.
And part of that success was because this Congress passed the PATRIOT
Act and our committee stepped forward with antimoney-laundering
provisions that became a part of that PATRIOT Act, so important on the
war against terror.
However, the recent front-page story in the aforementioned New York
Times cut the legs out from under this program. Now the terrorists are
well informed of the details of our methods and will find other ways to
move money outside of the formal financial system. Now the terrorists
will be driven further underground, and we will have to invest further
years of work to uncover these new methods.
Unfortunately, a one-day story in the New York Times can ruin years
of careful work by those who work to map terrorist networks and the
flow of terrorist money. Obviously, the editors of the New York Times
are more concerned about their sagging circulation rates and about
damaging the Bush administration than they are about disrupting
terrorist financing.
For those who may think we are overreacting, all you have to do is go
back just a few days to the arrest of the seven terrorist suspects in
Miami. That cell was looking to gain funding from al Qaeda to attack
American targets. While law enforcement successfully broke that cell in
plenty of time, we need to know about financial transactions like those
while the attacks are in the planning stage.
In a recent column, Morton Kondracke asked the question: ``Would
newspapers in the midst of World War II have printed the fact that the
U.S. had broken German and Japanese codes, enabling the enemy to secure
its communications? Or would they have revealed how and where Nazi
spies were being interrogated? Nowadays, newspapers win Pulitzer Prizes
for such disclosures.''
In the same column, Kondracke says: ``But the fundamental problem
infecting much of Congress, the media, and the political class,
especially those left of center, is that they are consumed with
loathing for President Bush and all his works and are prepared to do
anything to undermine him, even if it makes the country less safe.''
Continuing to quote Kondracke: ``Everyone in Congress and the CIA
should see the movie `United 93' as a reminder of what we are up
against. Muslim fanatics will not only try to destroy the Capitol, but
also explode a nuclear bomb, if they can.''
Kondracke goes on: ``And people should heed the warning delivered by
Princeton University Professor Bernard Lewis. Lewis cast the struggle
with Islamic extremism in World War II terms. `It is 1937,' he said,
`and we seem to be more in the mode of Chamberlain at Munich rather
than Churchill.'''
Kondracke, again quoting Lewis: ``Osama bin Laden and other would-be
Hitlers,'' he said, ``consider the United States an effete, degenerate,
pampered enemy incapable of real resistance. It's part of the pattern
that we fight among ourselves as much as against our enemies. This is
more than serious. It's dire.''
These are the words of a well-respected journalist. A profound
statement from Kondracke, but right on point.
Another respected voice on the issue is Michael Barone. On
USNews.com, Michael Barone recently said: ``Why do they hate us? Why
does the New York Times print stories that put America more at risk of
attack? They say that these surveillance programs are subject to abuse,
but give no reason to believe that this concern is anything but

[[Page H4877]]

theoretical. We have a press that is at war with an administration
while our country is at war against merciless enemies. The Times is
acting like an adolescent kicking the shins of its parents, hoping to
make them hurt, while confident of remaining safe under their roof.''
Nobody could have said it better than Michael Barone and Morton
Kondracke.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue. That is why the Congress
is debating this resolution. I ask this resolution be supported
strongly on a bipartisan basis.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, people who want things to be done in a bipartisan manner
should not engage in extreme partisanship at the outset. The resolution
that is before us was drafted entirely by Republicans with no input
from any Democrat, from the Intelligence Committee, from the Financial
Services Committee, or anywhere else, and presented to us a little over
24 hours ago. We then asked for the right to offer amendments, or at
least a substitute resolution. It was denied.
I find it extraordinary that repeatedly in the interest and in the
name of democracy the majority degrades democracy. How can it be
justified that no alternative can be offered? How can it be justified
that no amendment can be offered?
Let me say again: We are telling the Shiia majority in Iraq that in
their parliament they ought to make an effort to include the Sunni;
that it is not simply the majority doing everything, but you work with
the minority. You then give, Mr. Speaker, through your party, the
opposite example by not allowing even a resolution to be offered for us
to be voted on.
We have an alternative that is supported by a very large majority of
our caucus. And now let me talk about that resolution, because let us
be clear about what is not at issue today.
We have agreement that the method of tracking terrorists through
their financial dealings is a good thing. The Democratic resolution,
which the majority refuses to allow to be considered in their abusive
use of their majority, says explicitly that we support efforts to
identify and track terrorists and their financial supporters. So if it
isn't unanimous, it is the fault of the majority by doing it so
divisively.
We also in our resolution deplore the unauthorized disclosure of
classified information. But we talk not simply about people who might
print it, but the people in the administration who might release it.
Earlier today someone said, well, what would happen if you gave out the
name of spies? Well, ask the people in this administration who gave out
the name of Valerie Plame. We hope that something will be done.
Here is the difference between the two resolutions: the Republican
resolution, drafted entirely by them and withheld from us until its
publication, agrees that we should track terrorist financing. So does
the Democratic resolution. Theirs, however, includes a number of
factual statements that I do not believe we yet have a basis for
making.
Now, in some cases, some of those factual statements are about things
that turn out, we think, not to have been true. For example, on page 3
of their resolution they have reference to a prior incident in which
the Washington Times was accused of having disclosed classified
information regarding efforts to monitor the communication of Osama bin
Laden.
They don't mention the Washington Times because they like the
Washington Times. They mention the New York Times. Times, they are a
changing. If it is the New York Times, they don't like it, and they
criticize it. If it is the Washington Times, they talk about a far more
serious allegation about the Washington Times, that it gave away to
Osama bin Laden how we knew where he was, but they don't mention them.
But now it turns out they may very well have been inaccurate about
that, and I plan to submit an article from The Washington Post that
defends the Washington Times.
But here is the problem we have: we want to say in our resolution,
and we hoped it could have been unanimous, that we support this kind of
tracking; that we don't want things to be disclosed. But what we are
not prepared to say, and, frankly, nobody here is intellectually
prepared to say it, people may say it on faith, but here is what they
want to say: we find that the program has been conducted in accordance
with all applicable laws, regulations, and executive orders; that
appropriate safeguards and reviews have been instituted to protect
individual civil liberties, and that Congress has been appropriately
informed.
I think that the part about our being informed is very inaccurate,
and I don't know the answer to the other. What you have done is to
hijack the virtually unanimous support for tracking terrorist financing
into an endorsement of the way the Bush administration has conducted
itself. That is how it became partisan.
Why should this House vote now to say that the program has been
conducted with all the safeguards, et cetera, et cetera? We don't know
that. Members don't know that. Members on the other side are entitled
to take it on faith. I know faith-based resolutions are very important
to them, but I don't think as Members of the House of Representatives
we ought to be asked to vote, the most solemn thing you do in a
democracy as a representative, on factual statements when people cannot
know whether they are true.
Again, I want to go back and say, how can you justify, in the name of
democracy, denying us a chance to even present an alternative
resolution supporting this program?

[From the Washington Post, Dec. 22, 2005]

File the Bin Laden Phone Leak Under `Urban Myths'

(By Glenn Kessler)

President Bush asserted this week that the news media
published a U.S. government leak in 1998 about Osama bin
Laden's use of a satellite phone, alerting the al Qaeda
leader to government monitoring and prompting him to abandon
the device.
The story of the vicious leak that destroyed a valuable
intelligence operation was first reported by a best-selling
book, validated by the Sept. 11 commission and then repeated
by the president.
But it appears fa be an urban myth.
The al Qaeda leader's communication to aides via satellite
phone had already been reported in 1996--and the source of
the information was another government, the Taliban, which
ruled Afghanistan at the time.
The second time a news organization reported on the
satellite phone, the source was bin Laden himself.
Causal effects are hard to prove, but other factors could
have persuaded bin Laden to turn off his satellite phone in
August 1998. A day earlier, the United States had fired
dozens of cruise missiles at his training camps, missing him
by hours.
Bush made his assertion at a news conference Monday, in
which he defended his authorization of warrantless monitoring
of communications between some U.S. citizens and suspected
terrorists overseas. He fumed that ``the fact that we were
following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type
of telephone made it into the press as the result of a
leak.'' He berated the media for ``revealing sources, methods
and what we use the information for'' and thus helping ``the
enemy'' change its operations.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Monday that the
president was referring to an article that appeared in the
Washington Times on Aug. 21, 1998, the day after the cruise
missile attack, which was launched in retaliation for the
bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa two weeks earlier.
The Sept. 11 commission also cited the article as ``a leak''
that prompted bin Laden to stop using his satellite phone,
though it noted that he had added more bodyguards and began
moving his sleeping place ``frequently and unpredictably''
after the missile attack.
Two former Clinton administration officials first fingered
the Times article in a 2002 book, ``The Age of Sacred
Terror.'' Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon wrote that after
the ``unabashed right-wing newspaper'' published the story,
bin Laden ``stopped using the satellite phone instantly'' and
``the United States lost its best chance to find him.''
The article, a profile of bin Laden, buried the information
about his satellite phone in the 21st paragraph. It never
said that the United States was listening in on bin Laden, as
the president alleged. The writer, Martin Sieff, said
yesterday that the information about the phone was ``already
in the public domain'' when he wrote the story.
A search of media databases shows that Time magazine had
first reported on Dec. 16, 1996, that bin Laden ``uses
satellite phones to contact fellow Islamic militants in
Europe, the Middle East and Africa.'' Taliban officials
provided the information, with one official--security chief
Mulla Abdul Mannan Niazi--telling Time, ``He's in high
spirits.''
The day before the Washington Times article was published--
and the day of the attacks--CNN producer Peter Bergen
appeared

[[Page H4878]]

on the network to talk about an interview he had with bin
Laden in 1997.
``He communicates by satellite phone, even though
Afghanistan in some levels is back in the Middle Ages and a
country that barely functions,'' Bergen said.
Bergen noted that as early as 1997, bin Laden's men were
very concerned about electronic surveillance. ``They scanned
us electronically,'' he said, because they were worried that
anyone meeting with bin Laden ``might have some tracking
device from some intelligence agency.'' In 1996, the Chechen
insurgent leader Dzhokhar Dudayev was killed by a Russian
missile that locked in to his satellite phone signal.
That same day, CBS reported that bin Laden used a satellite
phone to give a television interview. USA Today ran a profile
of bin Laden on the same day as the Washington Times's
article, quoting a former U.S. official about his ``fondness
for his cell phone.''
It was not until Sept. 7, 1998--after bin Laden apparently
stopped using his phone--that a newspaper reported that the
United States had intercepted his phone calls and obtained
his voiceprint. U.S. authorities ``used their communications
intercept capacity to pick up calls placed by bin Laden on
his Inmarsat satellite phone, despite his apparent use of
electronic `scramblers,' '' the Los Angeles Times reported.
Officials could not explain yesterday why they focused on
the Washington Times story when other news organizations at
the same time reported on the satellite phone--and that the
information was not particularly newsworthy.
``You got me,'' said Benjamin, who was director for
counterterrorism on the National Security Council staff at
the time. ``That was the understanding in the White House and
the intelligence community. The story ran and the lights went
out.''
Lee H. Hamilton, vice chairman of the Sept. 11 commission,
gave a speech in October in which he said the leak ``was
terribly damaging.'' Yesterday, he said the commission relied
on the testimony of three ``very responsible, very senior
intelligence officers,'' who he said ``linked the Times story
to the cessation of the use of the phone.'' He said they
described it as a very serious leak.
But Hamilton said he did not recall any discussion about
other news outlets' reports. ``I cannot conceive we would
have singled out the Washington Times if we knew about all of
the reporting,'' he said.
A White House official said last night the administration
was confident that press reports changed bin Laden's
behavior. CIA spokesman Tom Crispell declined to comment,
saying the question involves intelligence sources and
methods.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for 5 minutes.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution
895 by Chairman Oxley. I commend Chairman Oxley as the primary sponsor
and author of the USA PATRIOT Act. He has been committed to combating
terrorist financing, and I want to commend him for his tireless efforts
in bringing this resolution to the floor.
We are at war against a savage and relentless enemy. While Americans
have a long-established right to know about the actions of their
government, when we are at war, when there is a national security
concern, there is also a well-founded historical precedent for
conducting covert actions out of the media spotlight.
Now, there can be alternatives, as the gentleman from Massachusetts
said, but there can be no alternatives to a strong national defense.
There can be no alternatives to a strong national security. And the
judges of what those are and how to conduct those should not be left to
the New York Times. They are for this body to determine.
Following the death of Zarqawi, an internal al Qaeda memo was
recovered from his hideout. It explicitly states that al Qaeda's
efforts have been hurt by tightening the resistance's financial
outlets. This statement serves as concrete evidence, concrete evidence
that programs such as the administration's Terrorist Finance Tracking
Program are both necessary and effective.
Remember, the 9/11 Commission was critical of the government's
failure to track the sources of terrorist financing prior to the
September 11 attack. However, in its final report, the commission
applauded the government-wide effort to combat terrorist financing
after 9/11 for making significant strides in using terrorist finance as
an intelligence tool.
They were talking about this program. This program was an important
stride.

{time} 1730

Indeed, the program paid big dividends, including the arrest of the
mastermind of the 2002 Bali bombing, a violent bombing that killed 202
innocent people. In fact, he was convicted based on information from
this program, a program The New York Times made a determination to
expose.
There is no doubt that America and our allies in the war on terror
are safer today because of this program, which is exactly the sort of
protection that Americans want and expect from their government.
Some question or debate whether al Qaeda knew about this valuable
program. Do they know about it now? Do they know the details? The
answer to the question is, yes, no doubt about it.
How do they know? Because they put it on the front page of the
newspaper. Not just any paper, but the largest newspaper in the biggest
city in the United States.
Who are they? They are the editors and publishers of The New York
Times. If you are al Qaeda, the appropriate response to this
publication is thank you. If you are indifferent, the answer is so
what. But if you are an American citizen endangered by terrorists, the
insensitivity, the arrogance, the irresponsibility of this paper and
its publication, then the appropriate response is anger and outrage and
this resolution.
Now, due to their irresponsible actions, this vital intelligence-
gathering program is virtually defunct. No longer would terrorists
conduct their financial business with the Swift cooperative. Sadly, no
longer will we be able to track their actions. This clearly hampers,
clearly hampers, our Nation's ability to conduct the war on terror.
Hopefully, our intelligence agencies will devise other means to
effectively monitor our enemies. It won't be easy. They will have to
start over. We won't be restricting their financial operations as well
as we did before this publication. But at least I would hope that if we
do fashion a new program that it will not be reported by the media
outlets who want to get a scoop ahead of national security.
Let me close by thanking the chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 895, which
is sponsored by Chairman Oxley, expressing our support for the
Administration's efforts to track terrorist financing through the U.S.
Treasury Department's Terrorist Finance Tracking Program. Chairman
Oxley--one of the primary authors and sponsors of the terrorist
financing provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act--has been committed to
combating terrorist financing, and I want to commend the Chairman for
his tireless efforts and for bringing this resolution to the floor
today.
We are at war with a savage and relentless enemy. While Americans
have a long-established right to know about the actions of their
government, when we are at war and when there is an overriding national
security concern, there is also a well-founded historical precedent for
conducting covert actions out of the media spotlight.
Following the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an internal al-Qaeda
memo was recovered from the terrorist's hideout. It explicitly states
that al Qaeda's efforts have been hurt ``by tightening the resistance's
financial outlets.'' This statement serves as concrete evidence that
programs such as the Administration's Terrorist Finance Tracking
Program are both necessary and effective.
Remember, the 9/11 Commission was critical of the government for its
failure to track the sources of terrorist financing prior to the
September 11th attacks. However, in its final report, the Commission's
Public Discourse Project applauded the government-wide effort to combat
terrorist financing after 9/11 for making ``significant strides in
using terrorism finance as an intelligence tool.'' This program was one
such important stride.
Indeed, the program paid big dividends, including the arrest of the
mastermind of the 2002 Bali bombing, a bombing in which 202 innocent
people were killed. In fact, he was convicted based on information from
this program.
There is no doubt that America and our allies in the war on terror
are safer today because of this program, which is exactly the sort of
protection that Americans want and expect from their government to
prevent further terrorist attacks.
Some question or debate whether al-Qaeda knows about this valuable
program. Do they know about it? Do they know the details? The answer to
the questions is ``yes.'' No doubt about it. How do we know that?
Because they put it on the front page of the newspaper. Not just any
paper, but the largest newspaper in the biggest city of the United
States.

[[Page H4879]]

Who are they? The editor and publisher of that very paper.
If you are al-Qaeda, the appropriate response is, ``thank you.''
If you are indifferent, the answer is, ``so what?''
If you are an American citizen endangered by the insensitivity,
arrogance and irresponsibility of this newspaper, the appropriate
response is anger and outrage!
Now, due to their irresponsible actions, this vital intelligence
gathering program is virtually defunct. No longer will terrorists
conduct their financial business with the Swift cooperative, and sadly
no longer will we be able to track their actions. This result clearly
hampers our nation's ability to conduct the War on Terror.
Hopefully, our intelligence agencies will devise other means of
effectively monitoring our enemies and restricting their financial
operations at least until that program, too, is reported by media
outlets that place getting a scoop ahead of national security.
Outrageous conduct such as that exhibited in the disclosure of this
legal, effective program cannot be allowed to escape just condemnation.
Therefore, this resolution.
Let me close by again thanking this Administration and Chairman Oxley
for their efforts in combating terrorist financing. Their dedication
and vigilance with regard to these issues have made our nation and the
world a safer place.
I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 895.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the Fourth of July, that
wonderful holiday where we celebrate America's Declaration of
Independence, we must recall that our Founding Fathers understood and
placed in our founding documents the important balance between liberty
and security.
In that spirit, at the outset, let me reiterate that we all,
Democrats and Republicans alike, support two principles. First, we
support effective tools to fight terrorism, including the tracking of
terrorist financing here and abroad under all applicable laws. Second,
no one here condones disclosure of information that harms our vital
national interest and makes locating terrorists and terrorist networks
and disrupting their plans more difficult.
These basic principles and their frames, liberty and security, are
contained in a balanced way in the substitute resolution offered by the
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). Mr. Frank's
resolution should have been permitted by the rule to be considered
today.
But, again, in this closed Congress that we are in, we cannot
consider alternatives. We can't even have a motion to recommit. I don't
know what is so good about that as we go into the Fourth of July. But
let us talk about the Republican resolution.
The Republican resolution before us today is quite clearly a document
for political purposes. It makes sweeping and dubious conclusions on
the facts and legality of the financial transaction surveillance
program, unsupported by any fact-finding or oversight, and based upon
representations by the President.
In a free society, we all have our roles and responsibilities. As
public officials, we must safeguard our lawful intelligence activities,
many of which have been conducted in secret. We respect that.
Our media, of course, have their public responsibilities. A free
press is centered on reporting on the workings of government and on
being alert, aware and free. They have an obligation to be responsible
about their reporting of national security and to balance any reporting
with the harm of disclosure.
Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration lacks credibility when it comes
to complaining about leaks. The administration's record, and that of
this Republican Congress, are marked by selective disclosures of
classified information and selective expressions of displeasure over
leaks.
When the identity of an undercover CIA officer was disclosed by high-
ranking members of the administration in the White House, as part of a
smear campaign against a critic of the Iraq war, the President did not
fire any of the leakers. In fact, one of them was actually promoted. As
Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald has told us, this disclosure could cause
severe damage and irreparable harm to our national security.
Similarly, it was recently revealed that President Bush himself was
alleged to have authorized for political purposes the selective leaking
of intelligence information in a National Security Estimate.
Where was the outrage and the oversight from this Republican
Congress? Nowhere to be seen. Repeatedly, this Republican Congress has
spurned resolutions of inquiry and neglected congressional oversight
responsibility to get to the bottom of leaks by the Bush
administration.
So let us take this resolution for what it is. It is a campaign
document. The Republican resolution contains a number of statements
that simply cannot be factually confirmed and are not the result of
congressional fact-finding or rigorous congressional oversight. The
Republican resolution also contains a number of statements regarding
the legality of the program and the safeguards it claims protects
individual rights.
Let me just read what that is. This resolution finds that the
Terrorist Financed Tracking Program has been conducted in accordance
with all applicable laws, regulations, and Executive Orders, that
appropriate safeguards and reviews have been instituted to protect
individual civil liberties, and that Congress has been appropriately
informed and consulted for the duration of the Program and will
continue its oversight of the Program.
Continue its oversight of the program? There has never been any
oversight of the program. The fact is, because there has never been any
oversight of the program, there isn't one person in this body who will
vote on this resolution who can attest to this statement. You are
asking us to vote on something that we absolutely cannot attest to. Not
any one of you can attest to this as a fact, because it isn't a fact.
So let us just go to where we began, to our founders, liberty and
security. As I said before, when the identity of an undercover CIA
officer was disclosed by high-ranking members of the administration as
part of a smear tactic, nothing was done. Nothing was done by this
Congress in terms of oversight. Nothing has been done.
The Frank substitute does not contain any of these unsupported
conclusions. The Frank substitute is a resolution that is balanced and
accurate and should command the support of all Members.
I intend to vote against this resolution. I wish that we could have
the chance to vote for Mr. Frank's resolution. I think that would have
been in keeping with the intentions of our Founding Fathers.
But let us keep in mind their constant admonition that in order to
have security, we must have freedom. In order to have freedom, we must
have security. We must have balance. This resolution does not.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair be
authorized to reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic
voting, if ordered, on passage of H.R. 4761.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Ohio?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reserving the right to object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized on his
reservation.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I reserve the right to object. We are
being asked to move this very quickly, I guess, because of the baseball
game.
If we could get the right to get a vote on our substitute, I wouldn't
object. But as long as we aren't even being allowed to have a vote on
our substitute, I don't know why we should be asked to hurry up the
proceedings.
I would ask the gentleman if we could get unanimous consent now, in
addition to this, to allow us to present our substitute. If we could
get unanimous consent for that, then I would have no objection to this.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman object?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will object now.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I ask unanimous consent that the House
allow us to present our substitute for a vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?

[[Page H4880]]

Mr. OXLEY. I object, and I withdraw my unanimous consent request.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Tiahrt).
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, we are a Nation at war. As a member of the
Intelligence Committee, I am aware of many of the Nation's most
important efforts to fight and win this war. I pay close attention to
our antiterrorist programs, particularly when the details are revealed
without proper authorization and our best efforts are rendered
ineffective.
I see a trend developing in the growing number of unauthorized
disclosures of classified information. In the past few months, we have
read countless articles revealing details and making allegations about
a host of sensitive national security programs, from the President's
Terrorist Surveillance Program to the Terrorist Finance Tracking
Program.
Each time, individuals who lack the fortitude to publicly take
responsibility for their actions have leaked the details about these
classified programs. Each time, the news media gladly aids and abets
them by publishing whatever secret that will sell another paper. I am
shocked by the easy attitude of many in the media towards disclosing
our Nation's secrets.
This past Sunday, June 25, the executive editor of The New York Times
wrote a letter to the readers about the newspaper's decision to publish
the details of the Terrorist Finance Tracking program. For me, the
editor perfectly summed up the prevailing attitude of the media elite.
He wrote, ``The question we start with as journalists is not `why
publish?' but `why would we withhold information of significance?' We
have sometimes done so, holding stories or editing out details that
could serve those hostile to the United States. But we need a
compelling reason to do so.''
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I take issue with that kind of arrogance. I can
offer quite a few compelling reasons.
First, it is against the law.
Second, it puts our citizens at risk.
Third, publishing secrets in the open press cripples our capability
to stop terrorists.
But don't just take my word for it. The WMD Commission reported this
very fact to the President, and the Commission's precise language is
quoted in the preamble to this resolution.
Fourth, publishing secrets in the open press costs us the cooperation
of our allies.
I mentioned earlier that we are a Nation at war, but we are not alone
in this war. The intelligence services of our allies cooperate with us
and share their sense of information with us upon mutual understanding
that this information won't be revealed.
When the secrets provided to us by our allies wind up on the front
page, that sense of trust is deeply fractured. We appear unable to keep
a secret. Our allies get hurt when they tried to help. They will be
less likely to cooperate with us on sensitive intelligence matters in
the future for fear of compromising their own sources and methods.
Finally, publishing secrets in the open press undermines people's
confidence in the intelligence community. The American people support
the extraordinary lengths which our government has gone to defend the
Nation against the terrorists on September 11. Moreover, the American
people rightly believe that our intelligence service, like our
military, is the best in the world. The late Mr. Zarqawi could have
attested to both sentiments.
However, when our secrets get published, the public's confidence in
the intelligence community starts to ebb. Our intelligence community
appears incompetent, unable to maintain the secrecy essential to carry
out the mission. Our intelligence community also appears to be unsure
of itself.
Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt about our efforts to fight the
terrorists. Our House Intelligence Committee has conducted extensive
oversight of sensitive anti-terror programs, including three briefings
on the Terrorist Surveillance Program. We have had one briefing on the
Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.
Mr. Speaker, I will like to make a note that the gentlewoman from
California said there were no briefings on this information. I
personally have had a briefing and also six on these various detainee
issues. Unquestionably, these programs are legal, and they were very
effective.
It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of Justice convene a
grand jury, provide immunity to the newspapers, the editors and
reporters, if and only if they would reveal their government sources
for these classified leaks.
We need to make clear to the men and women of our intelligence
agencies, to our allies and to the American people that these leaks
must and will stop. We need to make clear to those members of the news
media that publishing leaks of sensitive national security information
will not be tolerated.

{time} 1745

This resolution does just that. I offer my support, and I urge my
colleagues in the House to do the same.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to
note that the substitute resolution we are being prevented from even
allowing to be debated and voted on also condemns the unauthorized leak
of information, and it just does it without the praise which we do not
think has yet been substantiated for the Bush administration.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending the gentleman
from Massachusetts for the resolution he can't bring to the floor. I am
proud to be a sponsor. And it starts off supporting intelligence and
law enforcement programs to track terrorists and terrorist finances
conducted consistent with Federal law and with appropriate
congressional consultation. What's wrong with that? What makes the
Republican majority not want to hear the discussion on this amendment?
Well, there may be some motive political about this selective crying
out about information.
The SWIFT story bears no resemblance to security breaches, disclosure
of troop locations, or anything that would compromise the security of
individuals. As a matter of fact, I will insert into the Record the New
York Times editorial of June 28, 2006.
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out further, where were these screams
when the Los Angeles Times gave out information on this subject matter?
Other newspapers, the Wall Street Journal came out. Nothing was said
there. But now we are really worked up.
But why weren't we worked up when the information was published when
Judith Miller published her so-called scoops on weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq? Or the leaking of the identity of an undercover
CIA agent? By the way, that is already a felony, as it already exists.
I cannot support the Oxley resolution. I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' also.
It is clear this resolution is rebuking the New York Times for
publishing information on the Government's access to banking records.
In the myriad ``leaks'' that have been published in the press since 9/
11, why is the House acting now, on this issue?
Because it is politically convenient to do so. When Judith Miller
published her so called ``scoops'' on Weapons of Mass Destruction in
Iraq, where was the majority then? Where was the call for
investigation?
How about leaking the identity of an undercover CIA agent in an
attempt to discredit her husband who was critical of the
administration? I believe this House refused to take a stand on that
issue numerous times, despite clear evidence that the Vice President
personally leaked information.
It is clear that the majority would like to pick and choose which
national security information can be reported on by the press. I'd like
to remind them that under the First Amendment, that is not their
prerogative. That is the consequence of a free press--it will sometimes
print stories that the Government disapproves of.
There are already laws on the books criminalizing the leaking of
classified information. This resolution is absolutely useless in the
fair and thorough application of those laws to recent leaks.
In fact, the only purpose of this resolution is to chill freedom of
the press, and put reporters and their papers on notice that the
Republican majority will come for anyone who doesn't clear their
stories with the administration first.
We all took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Therefore I cannot
support legislation that on the one hand wholesale approves of a secret
surveillance program none of us know

[[Page H4881]]

about, and takes a jab at the First Amendment on the other.

[From the New York Times, June 28, 2006]

Patriotism and the Press

(By Eric M. Tamarkin, Esq.)

Over the last year, The New York Times has twice published
reports about secret antiterrorism programs being run by the
Bush administration. Both times, critics have claimed that
the paper was being unpatriotic or even aiding the
terrorists. Some have even suggested that it should be
indicted under the Espionage Act. There have been a handful
of times in American history when the government has indeed
tried to prosecute journalists for publishing things it
preferred to keep quiet. None of them turned out well--from
the Sedition Act of 1798 to the time when the government
tried to enjoin The Times and The Washington Post from
publishing the Pentagon Papers.
As most of our readers know, there is a large wall between
the news and opinion operations of this paper, and we were
not part of the news side's debates about whether to publish
the latest story under contention--a report about how the
government tracks international financial transfers through a
banking consortium known as Swift in an effort to pinpoint
terrorists. Bill Keller, the executive editor, spoke for the
newsroom very clearly. Our own judgments about the uproar
that has ensued would be no different if the other papers
that published the story, including The Los Angeles Times and
The Wall Street Journal, had acted alone.
The Swift story bears no resemblance to security breaches,
like disclosure of troop locations, that would clearly
compromise the immediate safety of specific individuals.
Terrorist groups would have had to be fairly credulous not to
suspect that they would be subject to scrutiny if they moved
money around through international wire transfers. In fact, a
United Nations group set up to monitor Al Qaeda and the
Taliban after Sept. 11 recommended in 2002 that other
countries should follow the United States' lead in monitoring
suspicious transactions handled by Swift. The report is
public and available on the United Nations Web site.
But any argument by the government that a story is too
dangerous to publish has to be taken seriously. There have
been times in this paper's history when editors have decided
not to print something they knew. In some cases, like the
Kennedy administration's plans for the disastrous Bay of Pigs
invasion, it seems in hindsight that the editors were over-
cautious. (Certainly President Kennedy thought so.) Most
recently, The Times held its reporting about the government's
secret antiterror wiretapping program for more than a year
while it weighed administration objections.
Our news colleagues work under the assumption that they
should let the people know anything important that the
reporters learn, unless there is some grave and overriding
reason for withholding the information. They try hard not to
base those decisions on political calculations, like whether
a story would help or hurt the administration. It is
certainly unlikely that anyone who wanted to hurt the Bush
administration politically would try to do so by writing
about the government's extensive efforts to make it difficult
for terrorists to wire large sums of money.
From our side of the news-opinion wall, the Swift story
looks like part of an alarming pattern. Ever since Sept. 11,
the Bush administration has taken the necessity of heightened
vigilance against terrorism and turned it into a rationale
for an extraordinarily powerful executive branch, exempt from
the normal checks and balances of our system of government.
It has created powerful new tools of surveillance and
refused, almost as a matter of principle, to use normal
procedures that would acknowledge that either Congress or the
courts have an oversight role.
The Swift program, like the wiretapping program, has been
under way for years with no restrictions except those that
the executive branch chooses to impose on itself--or, in the
case of Swift, that the banks themselves are able to demand.
This seems to us very much the sort of thing the other
branches of government, and the public, should be nervously
aware of. We would have been very happy if Congressman Peter
King, the Long Island Republican who has been so vocal in
citing the Espionage Act, had been as aggressive in
encouraging his colleagues to do the oversight job they were
elected to do.
The United States will soon be marking the fifth
anniversary of the war on terror. The country is in this for
the long haul, and the fight has to be coupled with a
commitment to individual liberties that define America's side
in the battle. A half-century ago, the country endured a long
period of amorphous, global vigilance against an enemy who
was suspected of boring from within, and history suggests
that under those conditions, it is easy to err on the side of
security and secrecy. The free press has a central place in
the Constitution because it can provide information the
public needs to make things right again. Even if it runs the
risk of being labeled unpatriotic in the process.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman, Mr. King of New York, chairman of the Committee on Homeland
Security.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak in support of
this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, this is a critical time in our Nation's history. Our
Nation is at war, and we have seen serial leaks of very important
classified top secret information. It is almost as if we are shadow
boxing. We are talking about it in a moot court-type way or a
theoretical way.
The fact is lives are at risk. The fact is in this particular
situation, by the New York Times' own account it was a program that was
working. It was a program for which the Times has raised no questions
of illegality. It is a program under which the administration, the
Secretary of the Treasury, the two cochairmen of the 9/11 Commission
went to the New York Times and asked them, in the interest of national
security, not to release the details of this program. But they went
ahead and did it anyway. And that really, to me, casts a motive over
why, questions the motive of the New York Times in doing this.
Back in December I strongly objected when they leaked the details of
the NSA terrorist surveillance program. At least, in that instance, the
Times raised what they thought were questions of legality. But that
didn't even exist in this current situation which, to me, goes to the
heart of an issue here, is what is the obligation of a newspaper, how
absolute is the first amendment.
My belief in a democratic society, where there is always friction
between freedom and responsibility, and while we give extensive rein to
the first amendment, to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, no
freedom can be absolute. With freedom comes responsibility. And to me
the New York Times has clearly crossed that line of responsibility.
Those who leaked the information, yes, they should certainly be
prosecuted. To get to them is going to be very difficult to do, unless,
as the gentleman from Kansas pointed out, reporters and editors are
brought in before a grand jury and threatened with contempt if they do
not disclose the names of their sources.
Then we will see if those who say they are so opposed to leaks will
stand up and support that. Because reporters should not be sacrosanct.
Newspapers should not be sacrosanct. It is fine to launch special
investigations and hire special prosecutors to go after any other
person in the country. But as soon as anyone focuses on the media,
focuses on the New York Times, or the L.A. Times, or the Wall Street
Journal, then panic sets in, as if special walls of protection must be
set up around them. They are not entitled to that.
To me they have a responsibility. The New York Times has woefully
failed in its responsibility. I say the jury might still be out on the
L.A. Times and the Wall Street Journal as to whether or not, what their
motives were. Did they only follow because the New York Times went
first? I don't know. But no one should be immune from investigation
here. They should be looked into very, very carefully. We should go
after the leakers. And to me, the New York Times, is not just the
facilitator of the leakers, they are coconspirators of the leakers
because it was leaked to the Times and the Times leaked it to the
American people and to the world. And because of that, our position as
a Nation is weaker. Our people are at risk. Our people suffer and face
the further suffering and death, and that will be on the hands of the
New York Times. That blood will be on their hands.
I urge adoption of the resolution.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution and to
support a more responsible alternative, which, unfortunately, is not
made in order for debate.
Mr. Speaker, there is not a single Member of this body who thinks
tracking terrorist finances is a bad idea. As the 9/11 Commission said,
``follow the money.''
But any intelligence program, no matter how critical to national
security, must comply with law and the Constitution. The Supreme Court
ruled today in the Hamdan case that no President has unlimited powers;
no President is above the law, even in matters of national security.

[[Page H4882]]

Although this program has been operating for over 4 years, virtually
no one in this House knew about it, and there has been absolutely no
oversight. Two Members were briefed in 2002 when the program began. One
Member in 2003, two in 2005, that is a total of five. And now several
dozen more, including me, last month, only after it became clear that
the program had leaked. The only reason I and others were briefed is
the administration wanted to stay ahead of the press curve.
Mr. Speaker, if you vote for the Oxley resolution, you are certifying
that the program is in full compliance with all applicable law. As
previous speakers have pointed out, the second finding of the
resolution states the program has been conducted in accordance with all
applicable laws, regulations, and executive orders; appropriate
safeguards and reviews have been instituted to protect individual civil
liberties, and Congress has been appropriately informed and consulted.
How can you know this? I don't know this. No Member has been briefed
more than once. No hearings have been held and no reports issued.
Moreover, I feel this White House will use a ``yes'' vote as an
authorization for further programs, scope unknown.
Mr. Speaker, I won't go there. Remember the authorization to use
military force in Afghanistan? Until today, in the Hamdan decision, the
White House has been using that vote to support unlimited detention as
well as the NSA program.
There are some legitimate issues raised by this resolution. Leaks can
get people killed. Those who leak highly sensitive intelligence
information can damage our national security. The resolution many of us
wanted to offer makes this clear. But if we prosecute newspapers and
erode the first amendment, we will end up killing our Constitution.
In May, the House Intelligence Committee held open hearings on the
role and responsibilities of the media in national security. We
received over 25 submissions for the record, and the overwhelming
sentiment was to tread lightly on action that could chill our first
amendment freedoms.
Mr. Speaker, as I said in that hearing, if anyone wants to live in a
society where journalists are thrown in prison, I encourage them to
move to Cuba, China or North Korea to see if they feel safer.
This resolution asks Congress to give the administration another
blank check. It is unworthy.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the
Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from
California, the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, for the
work that we have done together on leaks, and I think the approach that
we have taken on the committee.
We, today, are on different sides. I rise in strong support of this
measure.
Just a week ago, this program was one of the most highly classified
and sensitive intelligence programs of our Nation. Former 9/11
Commission Chairman Tom Kean said that the idea of a U.S. having a tap
into this type of information would have been, quote, impossible to
believe, end of quote.
There is little dispute that the program is lawful. It is
appropriate, and it has been an effective tool to identify terrorists
and their financial networks. The Intelligence Committee has been
briefed, has been conducting oversight.
My colleague has talked a little bit about the Members that were
briefed. But also it is important to note, and as many of us know, much
of the work that is done on any committee in the House or on the Senate
side, there is significant work that is done by staff. Nine staff
members, joint House, Senate, 9/11 inquiry staff, were briefed in May
of 2002. HPSCI consistently, in 2002, 2003, twice in 2005 and three
times in 2006, have been briefed on this program. The program has had
extensive exposure to staff and to Members.
A week ago, this program was only about one thing, finding our
enemies and keeping Americans safe. If it had been talked about in a
secret setting or in a public setting, it would have violated the law,
the rules of the House. Today I am not only talking about it; it seems
like everyone in America may be talking about it. And the interesting
thing is that perhaps the group that is most closely watching this and
trying to understand exactly what this program may be capable of doing
are our terrorist enemies. They are now aware of what we are doing.
Sure, we told them after 2002 we are going to track you financially,
we are going to try to intercept your communications. We are going to
try to find you in Afghanistan. We are going to try to find you
wherever you may be. Sure, they knew that. But they never had the
details of the specific tools that would be at our disposal to help us
catch them, to help us stop their funding streams and enable us to go
out and make sure that they could not attack us again successfully.
That tool has now been compromised, along with other tools.
That is a disappointment. The newspapers bear a responsibility for
that. I find it very interesting that as we go through this process,
the New York Times has decided that on their part, they went through a
process that indicated that now it is okay to release this information.
We don't know what process that is. Some of us have had experiences
with the New York Times before where they were going, quote, unquote,
through their process. And it is a very, very questionable process that
they go through, but we don't know and they don't talk about that
process.
They don't talk about who they talk to. They don't talk about what
information is provided to them, and they do not talk about what
information they provide to the sources or to the people that they may
be seeking information from.
I would love the New York Times to do an expose of their program and
their review process that led them to this decision to publish this
program. I would also like to see the expose of the process that they
went through and the deliberative process and the information that they
shared when they made the decision to go public with the terrorist
surveillance program.

{time} 1800

I think it would be enlightening to the American people to understand
their process as they make these very, very critical decisions that
have an impact on our national security.
And, finally, we do need to focus on finding the people that leaked
this information, whether they are in the intelligence community,
whether they are somewhere else, in the executive branch, or whether
they are in Congress. I think we have a mutual goal and objective to
stop these leaks, to do effective oversight, and to make sure that the
intelligence community is working within the box that we have set. That
function is the responsibility of the House and the Senate. It is not a
function of America's press to go through that process in a way that is
unaccountable to us and to the American people.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
I note that several on the other side have said, yes, it is true al
Qaeda and the terrorists knew we were going to be tracking them
financially. They just didn't know that would involve bank records.
That seems to me wholly implausible.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer), the minority whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that H. Res. 900 be
included in the Record at this point in time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.

H. Res. 900

[[Page H4883]]

the names of clandestine service officers of the Central
Intelligence Agency, inflicts significant damage to United
States activities in the global war on terrorism;
Whereas following the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act, which included
anti-terrorist financing provisions that bolster Federal
Government and law enforcement capabilities to find and
disrupt the financiers of terrorist organizations;
Whereas following the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks, the President directed the Federal Government to use
all appropriate measures to identify, track, and pursue not
only those persons who commit terrorist acts here and abroad,
but also those who provide financial or other support for
terrorist activity;
Whereas consistent with this directive, the United States
Government initiated a classified Terrorist Finance Tracking
Program and the Secretary of the Treasury issued subpoenas to
gather information on suspected international terrorists
through bank transaction information;
Whereas a few Members of Congress were notified of the
existence of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, with
most notifications taking place only after an intent to
publish stories about the program was communicated;
Whereas Congress has authorized the Secretary of the
Treasury to explore the implementation of systems to review
all cross-border wire transactions;
Whereas the bipartisan 9/11 Commission recommended that
``Vigorous efforts to track terrorist financing must remain
front and center in U.S. counterterrorism efforts''; and
Whereas persons in positions of trust and responsibility
granted access to highly sensitive intelligence programs
should not violate their solemn obligations not to disclose
classified information: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) supports efforts to identify, track, and pursue
suspected foreign terrorists and their financial supporters
by tracking terrorist money flows and uncovering terrorist
networks here and abroad in accordance with existing
applicable law, but notes that the expression of such support
in this resolution should not be construed as providing
additional authority for such efforts; and
(2) expresses concern that the unauthorized disclosure of
classified information may have made efforts to locate
terrorists and terrorist networks, and disrupt their plans,
more difficult.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 900.
Let me read H. Res. 900's opening resolution: ``Supporting
intelligence and law enforcement programs to track terrorists and
terrorist finances conducted consistent with Federal law and with
appropriate congressional consultation.''
Everybody in this body supports tracking terrorists. Everybody.
The gentleman who chairs the Intelligence Committee just talked about
process. Neither the New York Times nor the Los Angeles Times nor the
Wall Street Journal raise their hands and swear to defend the
Constitution and protect the laws of the United States of America. We
do that, and we have processes to determine how best to do that.
We are at war, and we ought to be united, and I will lament the fact
that the Republican leadership continually presents resolutions
designed to divide rather than to bring us together. There was not one
second of hearing on the resolution before this body, not one. There
was no process. There was no oversight. There was no fact-finding.
There was no way to determine what, in fact, the facts are.
We are not the newspapers. We have sworn an oath before God and to
our constituents to do our work in a way that protects and defends the
Constitution and the statutes of this land. You have not done that. You
have not brought us together. You have not said let us come together on
a resolution. Not only that, but we have an alternative. I have read
you its preamble, which accomplishes the same objective you want but
without adopting premises that none of us, not one of the 435 of us,
know that those premises are accurate.
I tell my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), he has not had
one minute of hearings in his committee on this resolution, not one.
Is that responsible? Is that the way the people of the United States
want us to carry out important functions of government when we are at
war? I think not. I think they expect more of us. We do not honor this
institution or its processes or our Constitution by the actions we take
today on this floor.
I will oppose this resolution, but I will support H.R. 900, which
says very clearly and emphatically that we want to determine what
terrorists are doing. We want to intercept the information from
financial institutions that further a conspiracy to create terror and
injury and damage to our country and to our people. But we should have
done it, I tell the chairman, in a collegial way, in a cooperative way,
in a partnership against terrorism, not in a partisan effort to divide
and to make political points.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, when your house is on fire, do you hold a
hearing? When you need emergency treatment, do you take time for a
hearing?
I rise in support of this resolution because at times we need not be
prisoners of process but instead champions of policy.
What is past is prologue. The year 1944, early in that year, General
Dwight David Eisenhower steps before the war correspondents and says,
with reference to D Day, Fellows, I want you to know it is going to be
in early June.
The war correspondents to a man stopped writing. One asks, General,
why did you tell us?
And Ike responds, Because you are good Americans and I know you won't
endanger the lives of other Americans.
The question before this House is just that stark and just that
simple. In wartime, despite partisan differences, will we stand
together knowing that information is sensitive in wartime and some
information should remain secret to protect the American people? That
is all this resolution says, that we abhor the leaks and that they must
stop and together we must win this effort. Our future depends on it.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
If that was all the resolution had said, we wouldn't be here. It also
says that the Bush administration has carried this out in a perfect
fashion. And yet you can have hearings during a war. Harry Truman
showed how to do that and made for himself a great reputation and
helped the war effort.
Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent
request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Frank
amendment because I believe I can embrace security and freedom and
liberty.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the dean of the House, who is a man of great experience in how to
handle these conflicting issues, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell).
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, there is no one in this Chamber or in this
body that is not a loyal American and does not want to see to it that
our troops, our Nation, and our security is protected. But this is not
the way to do it.
This resolution is conceived in sin, and it is brought forward to us
without an opportunity to consider it or discuss it properly. No
hearings, no opportunity to amend, not adequate discussion, not an
opportunity for a motion to recommit. All done in a closed fashion,
sprung on this body with no time to consider. The end result: The
opinion has to be that this is a clear, bald-faced attempt to strangle
criticism of this administration. This is an attempt to silence the
press.
I would quote to you what Tom Jefferson had to say some years ago:
``I am for freedom of the press and against all violations of the
Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or
criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of
their agents.''
Now, beyond that, Herbert Hoover: ``Absolute freedom of the press to
discuss public questions is a cornerstone of American liberty.''
That is what we are talking about here, the first 10 amendments, the
Bill of Rights of the Constitution.
This administration is perhaps the most deceitful and dishonest that
I have seen in the 50 years I have served

[[Page H4884]]

in this body. They either do not know what they are talking about or
they deliberately mislead. They told us about the weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq. They told us about Iraqi connection to al Qaeda.
They asked us to believe that the giving of no-bid contracts to
Halliburton, which wastes billions of dollars, are in the public
interest. They tell us that the insurgency is in its last throes. They
tell us that they are protecting our civil liberties while they are
tapping our phones and spying in our libraries and looking into our
bank accounts. They tell us to trust them on everything because they
are protecting our civil liberties.
Well, I don't think I can trust this administration to protect my
civil liberties or those of the people that I serve. And I certainly
don't believe that the majority has shown that we can trust them
because they are not having a fair or decent debate on this. They are
bringing to the floor a bill under a gag rule to gag the press, to
intimidate the press, and to see to it that the one agency in this
country that is telling the people the truth about what is going on
over in Iraq and elsewhere and the functions of this administration is
denied the opportunity to come forward and to tell the truth so that
the people may know of the follies and abuses of this administration.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to denounce this resolution that we have before
us today. I denounce it because, it is not only inaccurate--and
inaccuracies have no place in carefully considered legislation--but
also because I believe that it is a pernicious attack on the very
foundation of a free society.
It is impossible to have a democracy without a free vibrant press,
the claims of this Administration not withstanding.
It is the press that keeps our government transparent, and policy
makers honest.
It is the press that informs the public, and we should have nothing
to fear from an enlightened population.
In fact, what we should fear is a public that takes its cues from
politicians rather than newspapers.
Over two-hundred years ago Thomas Jefferson said, ``I am for freedom
of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence
by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or
unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents:''
Almost a century ago Walter Lipman wrote, ``A free press is not a
privilege, but an organic necessity in a great society'' and the
epitome of Republican presidents, Herbert Hoover, said. ``Absolute
freedom of the press to discuss public questions is a foundation stone
of American liberty;''
But this Congress and this President are cut from a whole different
cloth. The press, and by extension the people, are things to be feared.
They believe the press should be dismissed, and the public should be
ignored.
This Administration seems to think that any oversight is bad
oversight, and the Congress willingly agrees. In fact, the only thing
that has kept the public as woefully informed as they are has been the
press.
For the past five and a half years, the President and his deputies
have told the American people ``Trust us.''
Trust us on the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Trust us on an Iraqi connection to Al Qeda.
Trust us on gigantic no bid contracts to Haliburton which wastes
billions of dollars of the taxpayers money.
Trust us on mission accomplished.
Trust us on the insurgency being in its last throes.
Trust us that civil liberties are being protected as we pursue
terrorists.
Trust us that we had no idea New Orleans levies could be breached.
Trust us that everything is legal and your civil liberties are
protected.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to trust anymore. I cannot trust the
claims of this Administration anymore, and the only people that have
even attempted to keep them honest, and to inform the American people,
is the press.
An uncomfortable truth was revealed in the New York Times, and a
needless detail was included in a Washington Times story in 1998 that
enabled Osama bin Laden to escape capture. Yet these are the prices we
pay for a free press.
No one ever said that freedom was easy, or neat, or simple to manage.
Rather it is hard, it complicates policy, and makes governing messy.
But it also works and it has made us a model to be emulated and to be
envied throughout the world--and I would have it no other way.
I urge my colleagues to voted on the resolution.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), a member of the Committee on
Financial Services, one of those kept in the dark on this.
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I rise in support of your resolution that the House will not get to
vote on; and I have to begin by pointing out some of the absurdities
put before the House tonight, Mr. Frank.
On one hand, we hear that the terrorists are cunning and brilliant
and threaten every liberty that we have. On the other hand, on the next
hand, they are too dense to know we are monitoring their bank
transactions.
On one hand, we decry, with every piece of passion and indignation we
have, the New York Times. We dust off the reputation of the deputy
chief of staff who tried to leak classified information to them and put
him in charge of the fall campaign strategy.
So I begin with the absurdities, but I end with a more profound
point. If you vote for this resolution, you are voting for two simple
statements: The first statement is to one newspaper and to one
executive branch. This is an admonition by the Congress to prosecute an
American newspaper. I do not know that we have done that in all the
years that we have been here.
And then there is the second statement to every newspaper in the
United States of America and every magazine, to everyone who carries a
journalist's pen that the next time you think about piercing the veil
of secrecy, be afraid, be very afraid, because the hammer may fall on
you.
And I do not trust that, Mr. Frank, for a very simple reason. These
checks and balances have swung far too widely in favor of the
Executive. The President, I respect all of his power and all of his
authority, but he is not the sole arbiter of what is right and what is
wrong. And because we haven't performed our oversight role, we have
left him with this role of being the arbiter of what is classified, of
what is wise, and what is necessary to protect this country.
So I end with this trade-off: We would be very happy to give up some
of the freedom of the fourth estate if this branch of government, the
legislative, would do its task of oversight. But because we are not
doing our task and we see instances of it time after time, yes, we need
a fourth estate that is free. We need a fourth estate that is not
chilled.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I will take a second to correct the gentleman
from Alabama. There is not one word in this resolution that calls for
prosecution of anything other than leakers. Not the media.
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. That is the effect, Mr. Oxley. It is the effect
of it.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
There is a very clear notice in the Republican resolution, and I call
it that simply because that is how they decided it should be. They
drafted it and didn't even show it to us until it was printed. They
asked for no input. But it very clearly references the current criminal
statute that is there, and I do not think that was for no reason.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, there is no American, Democrat or
Republican, who does not want to pursue, capture and, if necessary,
kill any al Qaeda who threatens our country. And what is happening here
tonight is an attempt to shoot the messenger, which is the New York
Times and the Wall Street Journal and the L.A. Times, that there may be
a program that is being conducted by this administration which may not
be constitutional. It may not be proper oversight.

{time} 1815

Now, we are told that Booz-Allen, an accounting firm, is checking for
us. But we did not subcontract constitutional protections to an
accounting firm. Enron hired Arthur Andersen; we know what happened to
their investors. We are supposed to be the checks along with the
Federal courts.
Now, they say that you don't have to worry, we already know what's
going on. Well, the resolution says that the program only reviews
information as

[[Page H4885]]

part of specific terrorism investigations and based on intelligence
that leads to targeted searches. How do we know that?
The resolution says that the program is rooted in sound legal
authority based on executive orders and statutory mandates. How do we
know that?
The resolution says that the program consists of the appropriate and
limited use of transaction information while maintaining respect for
individual privacy. How do we know that?
This resolution says that the program has rigorous safeguards and
protocols to protect privacy. How do we know that?
There have been no hearings. There has been no oversight. There have
been no congressional investigations into this bank record surveillance
program. Booz-Allen knows more about this program than the Members of
the United States Congress and Federal judiciary. How do we know?
Instead, they shoot the messenger, the press of our country, for
revealing that they trust an auditing firm more than the Federal
judiciary.
Vote ``no.''
There is no question that our country must work acitvely and
aggressively to put Al Qaeda out of business.
There is no debate abut this point--terrorists are planning to strike
our country again, and we must not waiver in our efforts to prevent
another attack.
But while we work to destroy Al Qaeda, we must not debase our
Constitution.
While we track terrorists around the globe, we must not trample on
the very principles that are the foundation of our democracy.
The Bill of Rights did not come with an expiration date.
Taking the fight to the terrorists and abiding by our constitutional
requirements are not mutually exclusive responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with many of the provisions in this resolution:
We must choke off funds used by terrorists to fund their activities;
We must use our intelligence capabilities to detect and disrupt
terrorist plots before they occur; We must work with our allies in the
global war on terror.
But I cannot support a resolution that falsely claims that the
Congress was appropriately consulted on this program, and appropriate
oversight of the program was conducted. That is simply not true.
This Resolution is a perfect example of why the American people are
getting fed up with the Republican Rubber Stamp Congress.
Just last Friday, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and
the Los Angeles Times reported on the existence of a secret Bush
administration program to monitor banking transactions. These reports
come just six months after earlier revelations about the existence of a
program to monitor telephone call records. The reports themselves
indicate that some of the Government officials familiar with the
program had concerns with the scope and breadth of the bank record
surveillance program. Congress was not fully notified about the
program. No federal court approved the subpoenas that were sent to the
international consortium called ``SWIFT'' that had these bank records.
So, what is the reaction of this Congress to these revelations?
Are we going to conduct hearings to evaluate this program?
Is there going to be any oversight to determine whether or not it
fully complies with all Constitutional and legal requirements?
No, what we're going to do is take up this resolution and
retroactively bless a program that we weren't told about.
What we're going to do is shoot the messenger--the news media--for
informing this House and the American people that such a surveillance
program existed.

The Bush administration has claimed that tapping bank records without
a court order is legal. Perhaps it is--but shouldn't we conduct some
oversight to find out?
But, the Bush administration also argued that waterboarding and other
cruel interrogation techniques were fully legal. Once Congress found
out about those techniques, it passed the McCain amendment to make it
clear that such techniques were not legal.
The administration argued that trying prisoners at Guantamo Bay
before military tribunals and denying them the protections of the
Geneva Convention was also legal, but the Supreme Court just ruled
earlier today that it was not.
Now the Bush administration argues that the secret bank records
program is entirely legal. Perhaps it is. But, perhaps it is not based
on the Bush administration record of expansive legal interpretations of
executive authority, I don't think that this Congress should just take
the administration's word for it. At minimum, we should be asking
questions. We should be conducting some real oversight into this
program to find out. We should be holding hearings to examine this
program and to determine whether it fully complies with the laws--if
necessary, in closed executive session.
The resolution before us today makes findings and reaches conclusions
for which there is not yet evidence.
This resolution finds that the program ``only reviews information as
part of specific terrorism investigations and based on intelligence
that leads to targeted searches.'' How do we know that?
This resolution finds that the program ``is rooted in sound legal
authority based on executive orders and statutory mandates.'' How do we
know that?
This resolution says that the program ``consists of the appropriate
and limited use of transaction information while maintaining respect
for individual privacy.'' How do we know that?
This resolution says the program ``has rigorous safeguards and
protocols to protect privacy.'' How do we know that?
This resolution says that this secret bank record program ``has been
conducted in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and
executive orders, that appropriate safeguards and reviews have been
instituted to protect individual civil liberties.'' How do we know
that?
There have been no hearings. There has been no oversight. There has
been no Congressional investigation into this bank record surveillance
program.
Instead of Congressional oversight, or approval by a Federal Judge,
this program has relied on a consulting firm hired by the
administration--Booz-Allen--as the only oversight mechanism to evaluate
the legality of the financial surveillance program. The Bush
administration should have subjected it to proper oversight by Congress
and the courts. But it chose not to do so.
There is no factual or evidentiary basis for the findings and
conclusions reached in this resolution, other than the claims issued by
the Bush administration. Before this body goes on record in support of
those claims, we have an obligation and a duty to actually hold the
hearings and conduct the oversight needed to assure ourselves that the
Constitutional rights and the privacy rights of the American people
have been appropriately respected.
We should not be passing this resolution today, before we have those
answers. That is the gentleman of Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) sought to
offer a substitute amendment that would have represented a more
appropriate response. The Frank substitute would have deleted the
findings and conclusions in the resolution for which there is as yet
not sufficient evidence. It would have supported efforts to identify,
track and pursue suspected terrorist and to track their money flows in
accordance with existing law, and it would have refrained from
inappropriately charging the news media with harming our national
security. But the rubber stamp Republican majority that controls this
Congress refused to make this amendment in order. They're afraid of a
real debate on real alternatives.
I urge rejection of this resolution. This body should be able to vote
and debate on real alternatives to rubber-stamping whatever position
the Bush administration takes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. I find it interesting that when the 9/11 Commission gave
this Congress 12 Ds, five Fs, and three incompletes for protecting
America, nobody thought it was dangerous to America's national security
or for protecting our citizens. Nobody wanted to get the 9/11
Commission recommendations down here for a vote.
The chairman of the Intelligence Committee said it is the Congress
who will conduct oversight. When we were told this was a quick war, not
a long one and it turned into a long war, where was the oversight?
When we were told that the war in Iraq was going to be conventional
and became a guerrilla war, where was the oversight?
When we were told we were going to be greeted as liberators and we
became occupiers, where was the oversight?
When we were told that we had enough troops and it has been clear
that we needed more, twice as many, where was the oversight?
At every chance there was for the Congress to exercise its oversight,
this Congress walked away from it.
On the war on terror, Democrats have given the President everything
he wanted. The Republican Congress has denied the President the one
thing he needed, oversight. It is in this area that oversight is most
important. Every Democrat, every Republican, every Independent, every
American wants to protect the country. There is

[[Page H4886]]

a role for the United States Congress in oversight. The one institution
that is providing some accountability is a free press, and one element
of it is singled out for isolation in an attempt to intimidate it.
The Congress, as my Congressman said from Alabama, if the Congress
was acting in its role of oversight, you would not have to come up with
a gimmick to attack the one entity, the free press, that is also doing
its function. I find it almost ironic at this point that we have a
political strategy being designed by somebody and we all know what is
happening here. It is a political strategy to divert people's attention
from the real problems facing this country, one of which is the role of
the Congress to protect the American people. Its job is oversight and
accountability, and it has abdicated that for 2 years.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to a
senior member of the Financial Services Committee and one of the
leaders on the whole question of how we should be dealing with our
current problem, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Frank resolution,
900, which was not made in order by the Rules Committee.
As many of you know, the Financial Services chairman, Mr. Oxley,
introduced House Resolution 895. The Oxley resolution is well-intended,
but I cannot support it. It condemns the media for disclosing
information related to the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program. The
resolution is misleading. It contains whereas clauses characterizing
Congress' role in overseeing the program. There is no oversight to this
terrorist tracking program.
Mr. Speaker and Members, this is America and Americans ought to be
concerned about what is going on in this government at this time. As a
matter of fact, I think this government is spinning out of control. The
government is violating the United States Constitution and Federal law
in the name of fighting terrorism. Your President truly believes he can
disregard the Constitution, create new laws and executive orders and
whatever he does, he says, is constitutional because he is the
President.
Keeping with this imperial Presidency attitude, the Republicans have
the audacity to try and intimidate the press, using the same tired old
Karl Rove tactics that have become common to this administration:
intimidation, threats. They have accused us of cutting and running on
the Iraqi war, questioning Members' patriotism, accusing Democrats of
being soft on terrorism, and now the press. If the New York Times, The
Washington Post and the Washington Times or any other newspaper back
off its responsibility to report the news, no matter how unpopular,
they may as well close up shop and quit the news business.
This resolution as introduced by Mr. Oxley, that again is misleading,
condemning the media, must be rejected. This is not China, Vietnam,
Cuba, Sudan, Zimbabwe or Saudi Arabia. The free press is central to a
democracy. We are seeing the PATRIOT Act, the NSA spying, the
telecommunications companies giving up our private information. Enough
is enough. We must stop with this resolution.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), the only member of the Financial
Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee.
Mr. RENZI. I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
The law is a little bit of a sticky wicket. There are a lot of claims
being made on the other side of no oversight and that the President
hasn't properly informed the Congress. Nancy Pelosi was properly
informed; the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, properly
informed. Harry Reid, properly informed.
What does the law say? The law says the President shall keep the
intelligence committees informed. The implementation clause, and I
would recommend it to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the President
and the congressional intelligence committees together shall establish
these procedures. Who established them? Harry Truman, 1947. Who
established the Gang of Eight and used it more than any other
President? Jimmy Carter prior to September 11.
The law and history is a sticky wicket.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RENZI. No, I won't yield. I was only given a few seconds.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman made it a point to mention
me and will not let me respond.
Mr. RENZI. It's my time. I only get a few seconds.
The New York Times and the business of leaking is beginning to have a
cumulative effect. By their own account, they have leaked the
government's most closely regarded secrets. They said that it has only
led to a few potential terrorists.
Let me close with this: a few potential terrorists did damage to this
country on September 11. A few terrorists can help to take down and
destroy this Nation and wound this Nation. They are not the ultimate
arbitrators of how you declassify information. We all agree on that.
They can't hold themselves above the law. They have got to allow and
work with us.
This is the second time we have passed a resolution asking the media
to work with us. I feel, my opinion, that those in the administration,
this administration, those in government agencies, those in the media
and those in both the Democratic and Republican Party who leak
information should be prosecuted. We have got to put an end to this
charade. We have got to do it together.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 10 seconds to point out
that, yes, it's true, Ms. Pelosi was briefed. In 2002, at the beginning
of the program. She is not a fortune teller.
Mr. RENZI. Whoa.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Regular order. I ask the gentleman to be
seated. I asked the gentleman when he mentioned me to yield. He
declined to do so. For him now to interrupt me without even asking for
a yield is wholly outside the rules of the House, and I ask he be
instructed in them.
Mr. RENZI. Will the gentleman yield to correct a fact?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will yield to the gentleman exactly as
he yielded to me. No.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona will suspend. The
gentleman from Arizona, please suspend. Please take a seat.
Mr. RENZI. I will be happy to suspend, sir.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts may
proceed.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi) was briefed at the outset. The other gentlewoman from
California, the ranking member of the committee, was briefed, as I was
offered a briefing, after it was about to be made public.
I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York, a member of
our committee.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Frank resolution
that we are not permitted to vote on. All of us support legal efforts
to track terrorist financing. But what we have before us is a
nonbinding resolution that is more about stirring the Republican
political base and silencing the press than protecting our country.
The resolution makes declarations about actions that have yet to be
confirmed without conducting any oversight and without all the facts.
The Republican Party has become masters of cut and run, cutting from
the issues so that they can run for reelection in November.
This resolution is a diversion. If it was really about condemning
leaks of classified information, it would also mention Valerie Plame,
Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. And as the Member of Congress representing
the district that suffered the greatest loss of life on 9/11, I believe
that combating terrorism is a serious, bipartisan issue, not a one-
sided, last-minute, take-it-or-leave-it, Republican-only, political
campaign stunt.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the right to close, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. May I ask, the gentleman has only one
more speaker?
Mr. OXLEY. Me.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Me, too.

[[Page H4887]]

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\
minutes.
I reiterate, the resolution that we have, very unfortunately, not
been allowed to offer even as a recommit, because democracy abroad has
a much greater appeal to my colleagues than democracy at home. Indeed,
apparently, to the Republican Party in the House, democracy is a great
spectator sport. They would like to see it in Afghanistan, they would
like to see it in Iraq, but they don't want to practice it at home.
It's too hard. Members might be able to make a fair choice.
Here is what our resolution says: we are for tracking the terrorists
financially. We do not think there should be leaks. The biggest single
difference is that we do not subscribe to their automatic praise that
says that the White House, the administration, has done everything
right. That is the biggest difference.
Now, no one really can say that. The chairman of the Intelligence
Committee said the staff was briefed, some of the staff. Well, let's
have a mock Congress, bring the staff in here, and let them vote on it.
But those of you who weren't in the briefing and haven't talked to the
staff, almost everybody, are not entitled to vote to say things that
aren't true.
Let me talk about one of the things that I am unsure about. I don't
want the terrorists tipped off and if they are being tipped off, we
need to know about it. But we don't know that yet. The gentleman from
Alabama earlier, Mr. Bachus; the chairman of the intelligence committee
and others have said, well, yes, it's true that the terrorists learned
from Bush administration statements that we were tracking their
financial activities. But apparently they didn't know that that
involved banks. Did they think we were going through their pockets? How
can you acknowledge that people knew that they were being tracked
financially but, oh, no, it didn't involve bank records.
Now, I don't know what the answer is. But neither do those who are
ready to vote to say this caused that problem. I remind the Members,
there is a factual statement here that says, it doesn't mention the
Washington Times because you want to be nice to them, but it says that
the Washington Times in 1998 made a disclosure that made it hard to
find Osama bin Laden. That may well not be true. You are going to vote
them this. There is this automaticity to your behavior. You are being
asked to vote for things that I know most Members over there and over
here can't say.
We are not asking you to vote the opposite. We are not saying the
program had legal problems. We are not saying it was conducted badly.
We are saying, look, and we could have this, we could have 430 votes to
say, yes, it's a good thing to track the terrorists and it's a bad
thing to leak. Those statements of policy could be made, but they
wouldn't give any political advantage. To go beyond that and to turn
this into a Bush commercial, to say without any basis that we know that
they haven't violated their civil liberty, they haven't done privacy,
let me say this. If that is in fact the case, if they have run this
program as competently, as efficiently, and with as much respect for
individual liberties as you say, then this resolution deserves more
attention. Because that is a first. If they really have managed to
break the record they have had before, wonderful. But you are taking it
as they said on faith.
So let me close by saying once again what I have said in previous
situations. We have told the Shiia in Iraq, please show some
willingness to work with the minority.

{time} 1830

We have asked in Afghanistan that people work together. We have said,
do not be abusive of your majority power. Try to work together. And
then the majority here engages in the most outrageous abuse of power
you can think of.
I hope that all those watching will remember one important thing, do
not try this at home.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.
Mr. Speaker, this has been a lively debate. I just want to state some
facts. We are at war. All of the decisions, virtually all of the
decisions that have been made since 9/11 have been made in this
Congress, the administration, with the express purpose of protecting
the American people.
The PATRIOT Act, actions that were urged by the New York Times and
other media, were undertaken expressly to protect the American people.
And the fact that we have not had a major attack in this country is I
think fairly good news and indicates to everybody that the system and
what we have done is working.
We all served with Lee Hamilton. He was a great Member, well
respected on both sides of the aisle. Lee Hamilton was the co-chairman,
along with Governor Kean, of the 9/11 Commission. They testified before
numerous committees. They wrote an excellent report.
And that report was critical looking backward on things that we had
not done to better protect ourselves. We did not connect the dots. We
had a wall between the CIA and the FBI. There were things that could
have been done better.
And this was all constructive criticism. And then those gentlemen
went out, not only did they testify, but they spoke in public. And they
are still very active in that operation.
Why do you think, why do you think that Lee Hamilton asked the New
York Times to resist publishing that information? Do you not think that
he thought that our Nation was at risk and that that kind of
information out in the public would notify al Qaeda and our enemies
that we were in grave danger?
Why would somebody with the reputation of a Lee Hamilton or a
Governor Kean make that extraordinary effort to try to keep a news
organization from publishing that information? That is what this
argument is all about. That is what this resolution is all about. This
is serious business. This is not politics. This is about the safety of
our children and our country.
And we talk about politics all of the time. I am frankly
disappointed. Vote for this resolution and let us get on with the
business at hand.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 896, the
resolution is considered read and the previous question is ordered on
the resolution and on the preamble.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Is a
motion to recommit in order at this time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Further parliamentary inquiry. Since we
are in the whole House, would it be in order, by unanimous consent, to
modify the rule so that the motion to recommit could become a motion
with instructions, including the resolution we have alluded to today?
Would that be in order to ask for a unanimous consent request?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the House could amend
its previous order to admit a motion to recommit with instructions.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I then ask unanimous consent
that our motion to recommit be made a recommit with instructions so our
resolution, supported by the overwhelming majority of the Democratic
Caucus, could receive a vote on the floor of the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard. The gentleman from
Massachusetts?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I mourn democracy.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.
Res. 895, the Oxley resolution. I support efforts to identify, track,
and pursue suspected foreign terrorists and their financial supporters
by tracking terrorist money flows and uncovering terrorist networks.
But it does not serve the nation well to condemn the media for
performing its watchdog function even in a time of war. Indeed, it is
especially important during wartime that the media be even more
vigilant and aggressive in informing the public. I do not support the
resolution because it encourages the media to become lapdogs who see
their role as cheerleaders for the Administration rather than as

[[Page H4888]]

watchdogs who exist to safeguard the public interest.
During the 1790s under the Alien and Sedition Acts, and then again
during the Civil War and World War I, the government prosecuted
journalists. Today, we are again hearing government officials calling
for prosecution of journalists who report on the conduct of the global
war on terrorism and the war in Iraq and disclose to the American
public information which the Administration would rather the American
people not know. Some even accuse journalists who do so of treason.
But what these self-styled media critics fail to understand is that
the American people have a need for a free press to check the excesses
of government, and never more so than today.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution declares, without any proof or evidence,
that the House of Representatives ``finds that the Program has been
conducted in accordance with all applicable laws, that appropriate
safeguards and reviews have been instituted to protect civil liberties,
and that Congress has been appropriately informed and consulted and
will continue Program oversight.''
This is a major flaw in the resolution. Affirming as fact claims that
are not nothing more than unsupported assertions is not persuasive or
in the best interest of the Congress and the country. Rather, it is
merely argument by ipse dixit. Today the Supreme Court ruled that the
Administration overstepped its bounds regarding Guantanamo Bay
detainees. Who's to say that the Administration has not overstepped
boundaries in the area of domestic spying as well? The fact is we
simply do not know. We do not know because this Republican-led Congress
has been derelict in its Constitutional duty of oversight.
Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, I
support efforts to identify and track down terrorists and oppose the
leaking of classified information. But I will not play politics with
this Nation's security. Nor will I support the majority's trampling on
liberty and freedom of the press.
Most disconcerting is the chilling effect this ill-conceived
resolution will have on the press. In the words of one of our
distinguished founding fathers, George Mason, `The freedom of the press
is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained
but by despotic governments.'
I oppose the resolution and urge its defeat.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I reject all the ridiculous premises of the
resolution: The premise that terrorists would have had no clue that
international wire transfers would be subject to monitoring until they
read about it in the New York Times; the premise that the media should
conceal information leaked by responsible officials who are concerned
about the runaway police-state tactics of the Bush Administration; and,
the premise that by telling a select few Congressional leaders, the
Bush Administration can do whatever it wants, regardless of the lack of
constitutional or statutory authority.
When concerns were expressed about the far-reaching powers of the
Patriot Act, President Bush said any wiretap would require a court
order. He lied. When the National Security Agency's (NSA) warrantless
wiretapping program was revealed, he said we should trust him to use
the program judiciously. When we learned that the NSA also collects
millions of domestic telephone records, the President said it wasn't
what it seemed. Now, we add financial records to the list, and his only
response is to criticize the messenger. What will it take for the do-
nothing Republican Congress to start standing up for the Constitution,
or at least the prerogatives of the Legislative Branch?
If this Congress spent half as much time doing oversight as it did
criticizing those who dare question their government, we wouldn't have
to find out what our government is doing on the front page of the New
York Times. But given that no lie, no unlawful program, no petulant
signing statement is too much for the Bush toadies, I salute the Times
and other media outlets for their occasional bravery and for
maintaining some semblance of accountability in government.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to cosponsor H. Res. 900,
offered by Ranking Member Barney Frank, which provides that the House
of Representatives supports efforts to track terrorist financing and
their financial supporters by tracking terrorist money flows and by
uncovering terrorist networks, both here and abroad, in accordance with
existing applicable law.
The Frank resolution also expresses concerns that unauthorized
disclosure of classified information may have made efforts to locate
terrorists and terrorist networks and to disrupt their plans more
difficult. It does not include controversial whereas clauses or
findings that cannot be verified. The Rules Committee should have
allowed this resolution to come before the House for a vote.
I am unable to sponsor H. Res. 895, which Financial Services
Committee Chairman Michael G. Oxley introduced yesterday afternoon,
because his resolution contains a number of statements that simply
cannot be factually confirmed at this time. There has been no fact
finding, no oversight, no hearings whatsoever by any Committee of the
House to even try to establish whether or not the partisan findings
contained in H. Res. 895 are accurate.
The only way that these issues can be developed properly is through
hearings, classified hearings where required, before the committees of
jurisdiction, the House Financial Services Committee and/or the House
Intelligence Committee. Matters that are highly classified can be dealt
with by the Intelligence Committee.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, had it been my decision, I would not have
released a report on the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, and I co-
sponsored H. Res. 900 to register my disapproval. For no good reason,
H. Res. 900 was not made in order as a substitute amendment.
I have reluctantly decided not to vote for H. Res. 895 for the
following reasons. H.R. 895 was written exclusively by Republicans,
with no Democratic input, no committee hearings, and no committee mark-
up. The resolution was rushed to the floor shortly after being filed
under a rule that prohibits amendments of any kind, for one hour's
debate, and then a vote up or down. I agree with much of the
resolution. I wholeheartedly support ``efforts to identify, track, and
pursue suspected foreign terrorists and their financial supporters by
tracking money flows and by uncovering terrorists networks here and
abroad.''
I have not been briefed on the program, however, and I am no position
to find ``that the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program has been
conducted in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and Executive
Orders, and that appropriate safeguards and reviews have been
instituted to protect individual civil liberties, and that Congress has
been appropriately informed and consulted for the duration of the
Program and will continue its oversight of the Program.'' I hope that
is the case, but I have no basis on which to make such a judgment, and
I do not think that Members of Congress should hold out such a
conclusion if we cannot support it.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this partisan
and ill-considered resolution. This resolution will do absolutely
nothing to stop leaks. It's just another cheap, hypocritical political
stunt.
My colleagues should know that only last month, the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence held an open hearing on the very issue
of the media's role in leaks. What many of us observed at that hearing
is that there are at least two contributing factors to leaks to the
media. One of those is the use of the classification system to conceal
improper, even potentially criminal, conduct by executive branch
officials.
One example of this was the original report by General Taguba on the
Abu Ghraib abuse investigation. It was originally classified SECRET/
NOFORN but ultimately declassified in its entirety when the images of
prisoner abuse appeared in the media. To the best of my knowledge, the
House Intelligence Committee has never investigated why that report--
which detailed criminal behavior by American military personnel--was
classified in the first place. What I do know is that we in the
Congress must never allow the classification system to be used to
conceal criminal conduct--which brings me to the second factor
contributing to leaks of classified information to the media: the
refusal of this Congress to take its oversight responsibilities
seriously.
As I've said before, this Congress doesn't exactly put out a welcome
mat for those executive branch employees who seek to report misconduct
or illegal activity by their agencies. If you don't believe me, just
look at the status of the only bill before Congress right now that
would actually offer some modest protections for national security
whistleblowers.
H.R. 1317, Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act, was
offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platt),
last year. This bill would clarify which disclosures of information are
protected from prohibited personnel practices, and require that
nondisclosure policies, forms, and agreements conform to certain
disclosure protections. Last September, this bipartisan bill was
reported favorably by the House Government Reform committee on a vote
of 34-1, yet the Rules committee has refused to allow this bill to come
to the floor for a vote on at least three occasions.
This resolution shoots the messenger. A more useful approach would
address the problems of overclassification, the lack of oversight, and
whistleblower protections. If you want to stop leaks, if you want to
ensure that classified information doesn't appear in the press, then
give executive branch employees who have concerns about their agency's
conduct a place to go with their concerns without fear of retaliation
so that we can do our job: oversight of the executive branch. I urge my
colleagues to vote no on this resolution.

[[Page H4889]]

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the federal government's
program examine records of international financial transactions
collected by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial
Telecommunications (SWIFT) is worth all the sound and fury that has
surrounded the program since its existence was revealed last week. For
one thing, this program appears to threaten civil liberties less than
the already widely known ``Know Your Customer'' program or the
requirement that American financial institutions file suspicious
activity reports whenever a transaction's value exceeds $10,000.
However, the program's defenders should consider the likelihood that
having federal bureaucrats wade through mountains of SWIFT-generated
data will prove as ineffective in protecting the American people as
other government programs that rely on sifting through mountains of
financial data in hopes of identifying ``suspicious transactions.''
According to investigative journalist James Bovard, writing in the
Baltimore Sun on June 28, ``[a] U.N. report on terrorist financing
released in May 2002 noted that a `suspicious transaction report' had
been filed with the U.S. government over a $69,985 wire transfer that
Mohamed Atta, leader of the hijackers, received from the United Arab
Emirates. The report noted that `this particular transaction was not
noticed quickly enough because the report was just one of a very large
number and was not distinguishable from those related to other
financial crimes.' '' Congress should be skeptical, to say the least,
that giving federal bureaucrats even more data to sift through will
make the American people safer.
Congress should examine all government programs that monitor the
financial transactions of American citizens to ensure they are
effective and they do not violate the rights of Americans.
Unfortunately, many of my colleagues are attacking newspapers that
inform the American people about government surveillance on the grounds
that revealing that the federal government is monitoring financial
transactions somehow damages national security. It is odd to claim
that, until last Friday, neither the American people nor America's
enemies had any idea that the government is engaging in massive
surveillance of financial transactions, since the government has been
openly operating major financial surveillance programs since the 1970s
and both the administration and Congress have repeatedly discussed
increasing the government's power to monitor financial transactions. In
fact, such an expansion of the government's ability to spy on
Americans' banking activites was a major part of the PATRIOT Act.
Congress should be leery of criticizing media reporting on government
activity. Attacking the media for revealing information about
government surveillance of American citizens may make reporters
reluctant to aggressively pursue stories that may embarrass the
government. A reluctance by the media to ``embarrass the state'' will
make it easier for the federal government to get away with violating
the people's rights. Media reports on government surveillance and other
security programs can help Congress and the Americans people ensure the
government's actions effectively protect Americans' security without
infringing on basic constitutional liberties. I therefore urge my
colleagues to reject this resolution.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I object to--and voted against--
the restrictions the Republican leadership has imposed on our
consideration of this resolution.
Those restrictions made it impossible for the House to even consider
changes to this resolution, including parts to which I must take strong
exception.
I do agree with some parts of the resolution.
For example, I agree that ``the United States is currently engaged in
a global war on terrorism to prevent future attacks against American
civilian and military interests at home and abroad.''
Furthermore, I agree that the House of Representatives ``supports
efforts to identify, track, and pursue suspected foreign terrorists and
their financial supporters by tracking terrorist money flows and
uncovering terrorist networks here and abroad, including through the
use of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.''
And, I do support making clear that the House ``condemns the
unauthorized disclosure of classified information by those persons
responsible and expresses concern that the disclosure may endanger the
lives of American citizens, including members of the Armed Forces, as
well as individuals and organizations that support United States
efforts.''
But, like most Members of Congress, I cannot of my own knowledge say
it is true that, as the resolution states, the tracking program that is
the subject of the resolution ``only reviews information as part of
specific terrorism investigations and based on intelligence that leads
to targeted searches,'' or that the program ``is firmly rooted in sound
legal authority'' or that it ``consists of the appropriate and limited
use of transaction information while maintaining respect for individual
privacy,'' or that it ``has rigorous safeguards and protocols to
protect privacy.''
In fact, to paraphrase Will Rogers, most of us--Members of Congress
as well as members of the public at large--know about this only what we
have read in the newspapers or heard over the airwaves.
So, it is ironic, to say the least, that so many are so ready to
describe and praise the program's details and at the same time condemn
those who told us about those details.
In short, I think the resolution should not be adopted at this time
because its conclusions are based too much merely on the assertion of
claims for which no solid evidence has been presented. For that reason,
I will vote against it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, today we see how a great Nation loses its
freedom.
This resolution seeks to chill free speech by punishing the New York
Times and other publications for doing their job. That is unacceptable
and, frankly, beneath the dignity of the United States Congress. All of
us here took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Yet those
pushing this resolution seek to do just the opposite: to batter the
Constitution's most hallowed pillar, the right of free speech and a
free press.
Rampant lawbreaking by the Government, secrecy and selective leaks of
classified information to cover up that illegality, and threats of
retaliation and prosecution against anyone who dares to tell the truth.
How has the Republican Congress responded? Have they lived up to
their responsibility to get to the truth? To subpoena administration
officials or records? To hold anyone accountable?
No. The lapdog Republican Congress has worked hand and glove with the
Karl Rove White House to cover up the administration's lies and crimes.
The Republican Congress, with the chorus of cooperating media, has
helped the administration retaliate against anyone who challenges them
or tries to tell the American people the truth.
Does Osama bin Laden know that we had tapped into his phone lines? Of
course. The administration leaked it to the Washington Times which
published it. Any outrage here? No.
Did the White House leak the name of a CIA agent to friendly
reporters to retaliate against a critic? Yes. Did the President promise
to fire anyone who leaked? Yes. Now that we know it was the Vice
President and Karl Rove, did the President make good on his promise? Of
course not.
Does anyone here really think that Osama bin Laden didn't assume we
were tracking bank transactions? Administration officials have
testified before Congress that they did, and, for those members who
read bills before they vote, we required the administration to do just
this in the PATRIOT Act. Not a big secret.
Do you really think the terrorists didn't know we would be tapping
their phones? The only people who were kept in the dark were the
American people who were never told that their privacy was illegally
being invaded by the government. Bin Laden doesn't care if the
government gets a warrant, but law abiding citizens should and they
have a right to know that, even if the President tries to cover it up.
If the President breaks the law and covers it up, if the Congress
refuses to get the truth and joins the cover-up, then the free press is
the only guardian of truth and democracy. That is why Thomas Jefferson
said he would prefer a free press without a government to a government
without a free press.
Free speech and a free press are what keep a Nation free.
Is it espionage to tell the American people that the President is
breaking the law? Is it treason to report the truth? Of course not. It
is the duty of a free press to tell the truth especially when people in
power would prefer that the American people be kept in the dark.
Think of the thousands of young people who might still be alive if
the press had more carefully scrutinized the lies and distortions used
to lead this Nation to war in Iraq. Would we know about the illegal use
of torture if the press hadn't uncovered it? Would we know that the
government was spying on innocent citizens without a warrant?
No President should be able to cover up his wrongdoing just by
declaring it ``secret.'' That is what some here are suggesting. We are
a great and free Nation because the Government can't put you in jail
simply for telling the truth, and the Government can't use its prisons
to cover up its crimes.
A lawless President cannot hide behind the law. A cover-up Congress
cannot complain if the truth gets out.
What sort of countries prosecute journalists? What sort of country
hates free speech? Countries whose governments fear the truth. Stalin
locked up journalists. So does China. Free nations do not. As Justice
Brandeis wrote, ``Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social
and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of
disinfectants.''
Once again, the administration and its apologists tell us that this
activity was legal

[[Page H4890]]

and the leak helps the terrorists. How do we know this? Because they
say so and tell us to trust them.
After six years of lies and cover-ups, of law breaking and leaking,
this administration and the Republican Congress cannot be trusted.
Let's get the facts. I haven't seen them, and I don't think the
members who will be voting today have either. We only know what we read
in the papers.
The American people deserve better from their representatives. They
deserve and demand the truth. Thank G-d we have a free press. Thank G-d
we are still a free people. If the Republican Congress is afraid to get
to the truth, someone else will have to do it for them. For now, we
have a free press. Perhaps next year we will have a Congress willing to
assume its constitutional duties now abandoned by the lap-dog
Republican Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________