[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13620-13630]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1300
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 895, SUPPORTING INTELLIGENCE AND 
  LAW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS TO TRACK TERRORISTS AND TERRORIST FINANCES

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 896 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 896

       Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House 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. 
     The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and 
     preamble to final adoption without intervening motion or 
     demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 
     Services; and (2) one motion to recommit which may not 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 
minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, Congresswoman Louise 
Slaughter, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the 
purpose of debate only.
  This rule provides for 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Financial Services. It waives all points of order against 
consideration of the resolution and, as always, provides the minority 
with one motion to recommit, which may not contain instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and its 
underlying simple House resolution that allows the House of 
Representatives to take a very clear position on our collective 
commitment to identifying and tracking terrorist finances and our 
condemnation of the disclosure of any information that puts the lives 
of American citizens at risk.
  Today, throughout the course of the debate, we will hear a great 
number of accusations hurled from those Members opposed to this 
resolution. It is their right to dissent. That is the basis of our 
democracy. However, it needs to be made clear at the outset what this 
resolution does and what it does not do. What this resolution does is 
simple:
  It states that the U.S. 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 and that the House finds that the Terrorist 
Financing Tracking Program has been conducted in accordance with all 
applicable laws, regulations and executive orders, and that the 
appropriate safeguards and reviews have been instituted to protect 
civil liberties and that Congress was duly informed of this fact.
  It also says that the House condemns the unauthorized disclosure of 
classified information and expresses concern that disclosure of this 
information may endanger the lives of American citizens and our 
efforts, and that the House expects the cooperation of all news media 
in protecting the lives of Americans and the capacity of the government 
to identify, disrupt and capture terrorists by not disclosing 
classified intelligence programs such as the Terrorist Finance Tracking 
Program.
  This resolution does not single out or censure any specific media 
outlet for its disclosure of classified information that has put 
American lives at risk and made our allies less likely to share 
classified data in the future. Nor does it chill first amendment rights 
or prevent the news media from performing

[[Page 13621]]

their constitutionally protected activities. We will hear these kinds 
of accusations today time and time again from the other side, Mr. 
Speaker, and it is important to make clear from the outset that they 
are simply not true.
  The basis for the House taking this position is just as clear. We 
know that after our country was attacked on September 11, President 
Bush launched a full-on campaign against terrorist financing and 
authorized the Treasury Department to track the financial supporters of 
terrorist groups like al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah to prevent any 
further attacks on American citizens either here or abroad.
  We know that by following these monetary transfers, the United States 
has been able to locate and identify terrorists and their financers, 
chart shadowy terrorist networks, and keep funds out of the hands of 
these criminals. We also know that data provided by this program helped 
to identify a Brooklyn man who was convicted of laundering $200,000 
through a Pakistani bank on behalf of al Qaeda. This program also 
facilitated the capture of the mastermind of the Bali resort bombing of 
2002.
  This terror finance-tracking program, better known as the SWIFT 
program, has been invaluable in protecting American lives and choking 
off the sources of terror funding. It is exactly the kind of limited, 
legal and effective program that we need to hunt down and starve 
terrorists of the funding that they use to attack American interests 
and citizens.
  As with any national security program, the administration must be 
protective of the sources and methods it uses to execute its mission. 
Disclosure of this program has degraded our national security and 
injured our efforts to prevent terrorist activity by allowing our 
enemies to understand what steps we were taking to stop them. And in a 
situation where it is vital to always remain one step ahead of your 
enemy, the consequences of showing them our techniques has potentially 
devastating and life-threatening consequences.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to speak with one voice 
today in recognizing the importance of identifying, tracking and ending 
the financing of terror and condemning any actions that would allow the 
unauthorized disclosure of information that helps our government to 
achieve this end. I urge the adoption of this rule and the underlying 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, for all those who will in future years look back on the 
vote we take today as a window into the soul of this Congress, for all 
those who will see the approval or defeat of this bill as a testament 
to how committed this body was to the ideals from which our Nation 
draws its strength, for them, let me be very clear. On this day, the 
Republican majority shamelessly played politics with our most cherished 
principles.
  From the very beginning, this resolution and this so-called debate 
has been about one thing and one thing only: election politics. Six 
months before our midterm elections, Republicans are falling back on 
the one play that has worked for them time and time again. They are 
sowing fear in the hearts of the American people and labeling any 
individual or organization that doesn't take its marching orders from 
the White House as a threat to our Nation.
  Think of what we have heard from leading Republicans over the past 
few days. They have called the disclosure of the SWIFT anti-terrorist 
program a ``disgrace.'' They have accused the newspaper that first 
wrote about it, the New York Times, of forcing its, quote, arrogant, 
elitist, left-wing agenda on the rest of the country.
  Mr. Speaker, if all this is true, then I have no choice but to 
conclude that our President, President Bush himself, is a disgraceful, 
arrogant, left-wing elitist, because it was Mr. Bush who leaked this 
story. Mr. Bush, as well as numerous top-ranking members of his 
administration, have proudly discussed their efforts to eliminate the 
finances of terrorists for 5 years. Not two weeks after September 11, 
2001, President Bush told the world the United States had ``launched a 
strike on the financial foundation of the global terror network.'' Such 
claims have been made time and time again, not just by the President 
but by every top Republican official in power.
  What is more, no fewer than 20 current and former administration 
officials spoke to New York Times reporters about the SWIFT program. 
Where do you think the Times heard it? The article that started this 
all could not have been written without their active help. What the New 
York Times did, as well as the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles 
Times, The Washington Post, and newspapers throughout the country 
through news services, was to publish a story which had, in effect, 
already been published a thousand times over by the White House itself 
and had even been on the Internet.
  The end result is a Republican administration intentionally leaking a 
story, as they did to Judith Miller of the New York Times who was then 
their heroine, both publicly and privately, and then punishing the 
newspaper for reporting on its leaks. In such a context, the notion 
that one of our newspapers violated our national security last week is 
ludicrous on its face.
  Think of this degree of Republican hypocrisy and then consider this: 
the bill before us claims to stand against leaks. But it comes 6 years 
into an administration that has always been willing to leak even the 
most sensitive information if it thought it would benefit from it 
politically. It is the height of irony to think that when the Bush 
administration sought to silence critics of its pre-Iraq war 
intelligence claims, it chose to leak the classified identity of a CIA 
agent, as well as previously classified components of a national 
security estimate to, of all places, the New York Times. But it did so, 
and it did so willingly.
  Where were the resolutions of protest from the majority during that 
scandal? Did we have any expression of outrage over the leaking of a 
covert agent who, I am told, not only jeopardized her contacts with the 
CIA but the entire intelligence network itself because people would not 
trust us anymore? Where were the resolutions of protest about that? 
Nowhere.
  Where was the outrage when a national security asset, as well as all 
of her contacts in the intelligence community, were put into danger? 
There was none, because Republicans deemed that was a permissible leak, 
and it was profitable.
  The Republican outrage we see today stinks to high heaven because the 
leak of Valerie Plame's identity last year came from high-up, the 
highest ranks of its own White House. And when all the contradictions 
inherent in this bill are laid bare, we can see what it is actually all 
about.
  Republicans need to change the subject of the real debate everyday 
people are having in the country. That debate is about the wisdom of 
this 3-year, $400 billion war in Iraq that is still claiming American 
lives even today. It is about the numerous scandals of its own creation 
that the majority is scrambling to explain away. It is about the fact 
that Republicans have been entirely unwilling to exercise any form of 
meaningful oversight over the programs implemented by Congress and the 
White House with disastrous results to our Nation. It is about the very 
direction that America will take in the years ahead.
  Democrats are eager to debate all of these issues. But Republicans, 
as we see today, are interested only in inventing enemies to point 
fingers at and turn the public against. And to do so, Mr. Speaker, they 
are willing to jeopardize even our most basic and fundamental 
principles. They are willing with this bill and with what they have and 
will say on the floor today to make it the province of Congress to 
dictate to our cherished independent media what it can and cannot 
report about and what it can and cannot say.
  But blaming the messenger is nothing new in this country, Mr. 
Speaker. The first time a newspaper was punished by an elected official 
was in 1735

[[Page 13622]]

when a New York publisher wrote unflattering things about the Governor 
of the New York territory and was put in jail. Only a few decades 
later, the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed by Congress to silence 
those who opposed American involvement in a war with France.
  But to today threaten retribution and legal action against virtually 
every news organization in this country simply to gain a few points in 
the polls? It is a debasement of this Congress and a desecration of our 
Nation's ideals.
  Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle and in the 
White House have a right to be worried about what lies ahead for them, 
but what they do not have the right to do is to politicize our national 
security. They do not have the right to hypocritically and arbitrarily 
decide when the Nation has been endangered by a leak and when a leak is 
entirely acceptable. And they most certainly do not have the right to 
reshape this Congress into a body concerned with, in truth, little more 
than political retribution against an equally arbitrary ``enemies 
list.''
  The American people expect this majority and this administration to 
guard information, not punish newspapers from writing about it after it 
has been officially revealed at the highest source of the government. 
Think about that for a moment. The President of the United States time 
after time after time has bragged on this program and yet pillories the 
New York Times and other papers for writing about it.
  The citizens of this country understand that at the end of the day, 
the job of protecting our national security falls on the shoulders of 
our elected officials, not just on journalists whose primary duty is to 
objectively report on the world around us. Our citizens expect this 
body to do much more than it is doing here today. They expect it to 
follow a higher calling. And they are right.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States did 
speak about this opportunity that we had as a result of what the 
Congress passed the law asking and giving the legal authority to the 
President to track financial transactions. The Congress had already 
spoken about it as we were debating whether we were going to pass that 
law. In fact, the President did as a result of these disclosures of 
finding terrorists say that we found financial ends and means by which 
terrorists were being supported.

                              {time}  1315

  But I will strongly disagree with the young woman from New York in 
her characterization that the President spilled the beans on all of 
this. Not true. It was someone going and talking to over 20 people, 
revealing intimate details of what the plan was. Not that it existed, 
but how it worked, where it was formed, where we gathered information, 
how things were done.
  And that is a desperate attempt by someone to go and provide the 
enemy with information that would allow them to work around those 
things that we had established. What we are talking about is classified 
information, not the knowledge that something is happening. And 
classified information in detail about not just the summary of this, 
but in details, is what we are concerned about today.
  So I disagree with the gentlewoman from New York. I believe that her 
characterization is not only wrong, but it is also aimed at the wrong 
people. We had hoped and would still hope that the minority today would 
see that what we are talking about is sharing of classified information 
and that we believe it is the wrong thing to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Oxley), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding. And let me say at the outset I appreciate his good work on 
the Rules Committee and affording us the opportunity to testify last 
evening on this legislation.
  I did not introduce this bill, or this resolution, for political 
purposes. I have a deep respect for our process and our institution 
here. I introduced that resolution to send a signal that a lot of 
people in this Congress, on both sides of the aisle, are pretty sick 
and tired of people leaking classified information, secret classified 
information, and having the media report it with no responsibility, no 
accountability whatsoever.
  They are endangering our fighting men and women in Iraq and all over 
the world. They endanger the very freedoms that we enjoy. And it has 
been a continual frustration, whether it was the NSA revelations or the 
wire-tapping of al Qaeda suspects who are talking to people or emailing 
people in the United States.
  This is the third time in a relatively short period of time that this 
country has been witness to essentially treasonous behavior on the part 
of individuals who leak classified information, clearly against the 
law, clearly against the law, and then brazenly reported in the front 
pages of major newspapers, aiding and abetting the enemy.
  We are at war, ladies and gentlemen. Now, some of you folks find that 
an inconvenient fact, but we are at war. And when the Congress 
responded with the PATRIOT Act shortly after 9/11, that was supported 
by a broad array of Members on both sides of the aisle and with 
editorials in the New York Times and other newspapers telling the 
administration they better get on the case and set up ways that we can 
intercept terrorist financing.
  Part of that legislation came out of my committee. We are pretty 
proud of what we did in that antimoney laundering, antiterrorist 
funding legislation that we made part of the PATRIOT Act. And guess 
what? It has worked. Now, that may drive some of these people crazy in 
certain editorial boards. But the fact is this program has worked 
effectively and efficiently since it was set up for the first time.
  Even the New York Times in their editorial, the editorial board of 
the New York Times specifically called on Congress and the 
administration to set up programs to intercept and monitor financial 
reporting internationally. And this program has worked effectively 
well.
  The President of the United States was not dumb enough to go out 
there and talk about methods and ways that this program worked, as the 
gentleman from Texas said. He talked about the program existing. But he 
did not say how it worked on a day-to-day basis. And now we have it 
spread all over the news media about how this program works. What is 
the average terrorist to think?
  He is going to find a different way to move his money around, that is 
what he is going to do. He is going to change his behavior. So this 
resolution was set up to first of all say this is a very effective 
program. Let me just go over the four basic points of this resolution.
  One, it supports the government's efforts to identify, track, and 
pursue terrorists and their financial supporters. Now, if you are 
against that, then vote ``no.''
  Two, finds that the Treasury Department's Terrorist Financing 
Tracking Program has been conducted in accordance with law, with 
appropriate safeguards and reviews to protect individual civil 
liberties, and in consultation with and oversight by the Congress. If 
you don't like that, then vote against it.
  Three, condemns the unauthorized disclosure of classified 
information. Who among us is not going to agree with that?
  Four, calls on the news media organizations to stop disclosing 
classified intelligence programs that protect the lives of Americans 
and the capability of the government to identify, disrupt and capture 
terrorists.
  That is what this resolution says. So read the resolution and then 
tell me what part of that resolution you don't agree with. And if you 
don't agree with it, then by all means vote ``no.''
  I would like to close by quoting Mort Kondracke in a recent edition 
of Roll Call in his column. He says this: ``Would newspapers in the 
midst of World War II have printed the fact that the U.S. has broken 
German and Japanese codes, enabling the enemy to secure its 
communications, or reveal how

[[Page 13623]]

and where Nazi spies were being interrogated?''
  Mr. Kondracke goes on to say: ``Nowadays newspapers win Pulitzer 
Prizes for such disclosures.'' And then he goes on to say: ``The 
situation is very serious; in fact it is dire.'' It is dire. Now, I 
don't consider Mort Kondracke to be from the far right. But he has 
nailed this basic question that this resolution addresses.
  We all, as Members of Congress, have a responsibility to protect this 
Nation and its people. And one of the ways we do it is making sure that 
we can track terrorist financing and do it and protect civil liberties, 
and we are doing just that.
  And this resolution confirms that. I ask all of the Members on both 
sides of the aisle to support this resolution because this is really at 
the heart of a gut-check in this country, whether we are going to allow 
for this kind of behavior to take place, leaking classified information 
and then having newspapers win a Pulitzer Prize as a result.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 seconds to say I am 
sorry this House did not care about the leaking of Valerie Plame to 
that extent.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let's be honest. We are here today because 
there has not been enough red meat thrown at the Republican base before 
the Fourth of July recess. That is why we are here. So just in the nick 
of time, we have H. Res. 895.
  The rule for this resolution is of course completely closed. Not even 
a substitute is made in order. The Republican leadership of this House 
does not even make a pretense of being fair and open and democratic any 
more. Under their leadership, this House makes the old politburo look 
like a New England town meeting. It is disgraceful.
  This resolution purports to be about protecting our national 
security, about protecting the most sensitive secrets in the Federal 
Government. Mr. Speaker, no one in this House supports the disclosure 
of classified information that could genuinely endanger the lives of 
Americans.
  But we all know that is not what is going on here. In reality, it is 
an attempt to punish and intimidate the New York Times and other 
newspapers for publishing a story about the administration's 
surveillance of international financial transactions.
  The Times reported on surveillance of transactions to the Society for 
Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or SWIFT.
  But as the Boston Globe recently reported, the Bush administration 
itself has publicly and repeatedly talked about this issue since 
September 11.
  Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official until 
2003, told the Globe: ``There have been public references to SWIFT 
before. The White House is overreaching when they say the New York 
Times committed a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the 
public domain before.''
  Further, the Globe notes that a report to the U.N. Security Council 
in late 2001 said that SWIFT and other worldwide financial clearing 
houses ``are critical to processing international banking transactions 
and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to 
apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious 
transactions. The group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms 
by other countries.''
  How many times have we heard the Bush administration talking about 
the need to monitor and disrupt terrorist financial transactions? How 
many times have we heard them bragging about their success in doing so? 
Too many to count. So it does not even pass the laugh test when Members 
of Congress start using words like ``treason,'' when they start calling 
for criminal prosecution against newspapers, when they circulate 
ludicrous Dear Colleague letters threatening to revoke the Times 
credentials to cover Congress.
  Even worse, Mr. Speaker, is the rank hypocrisy exposed by this 
resolution. The Bush administration and their Republican allies in 
Congress say they are outraged by leaks of sensitive information. Well, 
as the ranking member on the Rules Committee pointed out, where was 
their outrage when White House officials leaked the name of an 
undercover CIA officer in an attempt to smear her husband?
  Where was their outrage when White House officials leaked false and 
misleading intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 
order to bolster their case for war? Those leaks, I should note, were 
made to the same New York Times that has their knickers in a twist 
today.
  Where was their outrage when General Casey's plan for potential troop 
reductions in Iraq suddenly appeared in the Times and in other 
newspapers? Now, I assume that given their outrage today, we will never 
again see sensitive information attributed to a ``senior administration 
official'' or ``a senior House Republican.''
  What is really going on here, Mr. Speaker, is that the administration 
and their allies have no problems with leaks to the press when those 
leaks advance their political agenda. But if a leak contradicts their 
agenda, suddenly they call it treason. They suffer from a case of 
selective outrage.
  This administration is obsessed with secrecy, with controlling the 
flow of information in this country, with shutting out the other 
branches of government, with signing statements that make clear they 
have no intention of following the law, with bullying their critics 
into silence by questioning their patriotism.
  Time after time this Congress has acquiesced. For the Republican 
leadership, oversight is a four-letter word. Not since Richard Nixon 
has it been more important to have an unfettered and free press, 
because that is the only check left on the imperial Presidency in 
America today.
  Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the American people will see through 
this. And I urge my colleagues to do the same. Reject this closed rule 
and reject this resolution.

                 [From the Boston Globe, June 28, 2006]

              Terrorist Funds-Tracking No Secret, Some Say

                           (By Bryan Bender)

       Washington.--News reports disclosing the Bush 
     administration's use of a special bank surveillance program 
     to track terrorist financing spurred outrage in the White 
     House and on Capitol Hill, but some specialists pointed out 
     yesterday that the government itself has publicly discussed 
     its stepped-up efforts to monitor terrorist finances since 
     the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
       On Monday, President Bush said it was ``disgraceful'' that 
     The New York Times and other media outlets reported last week 
     that the US government was quietly monitoring international 
     financial transactions handled by an industry-owned 
     cooperative in Belgium called the Society for Worldwide 
     Interbank Financial Communication, or SWIFT, which is 
     controlled by nearly 8,000 institutions in 20 countries. The 
     Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and The Wall Street 
     Journal also reported about the program.
       The controversy continued to simmer yesterday when Senator 
     Jim Bunning, a Republican of Kentucky, accused the Times of 
     ``treason,'' telling reporters in a conference call that it 
     ``scares the devil out of me'' that the media would reveal 
     such sensitive information. Senator Pat Roberts, a Kansas 
     Republican, requested US intelligence agencies to assess 
     whether the reports have damaged anti-terrorism operations. 
     And Representative Peter King, the chairman of the House 
     Homeland Security Committee, has urged Attorney General 
     Albetrto Gonzalez to pursue ``possible criminal prosecution'' 
     of the Times, which has reported on other secret government 
     surveillance programs. The New York Times Co. owns The Boston 
     Globe.
       But a search of public records--government documents posted 
     on the Internet, congressional testimony, guidelines for bank 
     examiners, and even an executive order President Bush signed 
     in September 2001--describe how US authorities have openly 
     sought new tools to track terrorist financing since 2001. 
     That includes getting access to information about terrorist-
     linked wire transfers and other transactions, including those 
     that travel through SWIFT.
       ``There have peen public references to SWIFT before,'' said 
     Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official 
     until 2003. ``The White House is overreaching when they say 
     [The New York Times committed] a crime against the war on 
     terror. It has been in the public domain before.''
       Victor D. Comrass, a former US diplomat who oversaw efforts 
     at the United Nations to improve international measures to 
     combat terror financing, said it was common knowledge that 
     worldwide financial transactions

[[Page 13624]]

     were being closely monitored for links to terrorists. ``A lot 
     of people were aware that this was going on,'' said Comras, 
     one of a half-dozen financial experts UN Secretary General 
     Kofi Annan recruited for the task.
       ``Unless they were pretty dumb, they had to assume'' their 
     transactions were being monitored, Comras said of terrorist 
     group. ``We have spent the last four years bragging how 
     effective we have been in tracking terrorist financing.''
       Indeed, a report that Comras co-authored in 2002 for the UN 
     Security Council specifically mentioned SWIFT as a source of 
     financial information that the United States had tapped into. 
     The system, which handles trillions of dollars in worldwide 
     transactions each day, serves as a main hub for banks and 
     other financial institutions that move money around the 
     world. According to The New York Times, SWIFT executives 
     agreed to give the Treasury Department and the CIA broad 
     access to its database.
       SWIFT and other worldwide financial clearinghouses ``are 
     critical to processing international banking transactions and 
     are rich with payment information,'' according to the 33-page 
     report by the terrorist monitoring group established by the 
     UN Security Council in late 2001. ``The United States has 
     begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify 
     suspicious transactions. The group recommends the adoption of 
     similar mechanisms by other countries.''
       Some worry that the new disclosures will nonetheless hamper 
     US counter-terrorism efforts.
       ``I worked this stuff and I can guarantee that [revealing 
     the SWIFT] information made a difference,'' said Dennis 
     Lormel, a retired FBI special agent who helped establish the 
     bureau's Terrorist Financing Operations Section before 
     leaving government in 2003. ``The disclosure will have an 
     adverse impact on investigations. It was used in two specific 
     instances where it helped to track terrorists. We also used 
     it for lead value.''
       But the White House has also been very public about its 
     efforts to track the overseas banking transactions of 
     Americans and other foreign nationals.
       Less than two weeks after the 9/11 attacks, Bush signed an 
     executive order calling for greater cooperation with foreign 
     entities to monitor money that might be headed to terrorist 
     groups. The executive order was posted on the White House 
     website.
       The document called for ``cooperation with, and sharing 
     information by, United States and foreign financial 
     institutions as an additional tool to enable the United 
     States to combat the financing of terrorism.''
       Richard Newcomb, the head of the Treasury Department's 
     Office of Foreign Asset Control at the time, later publicly 
     credited the president for enabling US law enforcement and 
     intelligence agencies to nab suspected terrorists, including 
     followers of ``Hambali,'' Al Qaeda's leader in Southeast 
     Asia. The New York Times report said Hambali's capture in 
     2003 came with the aid of information gleaned from SWIFT.
       Administration officials have said this week that the 
     disclosure of such details were particularly damaging to US 
     security.
       Nevertheless, in July 2003--a month before Hambali was 
     captured--Newcomb told the Senate Government Affairs 
     Committee in detail about a program initiated after 9/11 
     between his office and the Pentagon to track Hambali's 
     financial network in Southeast Asia. The scope of the project 
     included Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Singapore, 
     focusing on the finances of Jemaa Islamiyah, the Al Qaeda 
     group run by Hambali that was responsible for deadly bombings 
     in Bali in 2002.
       He said the operation ``identified the key leaders, fund-
     raisers, businessmen, recruiters, companies, charities, 
     mosques, and schools that were part of [Jamaa Islamiyah] 
     support network. Thus far, we have imposed sanctions against 
     two of these key nodes, and are coordinating action against 
     several others,'' Newcomb told the committee.
       Other public documents have also detailed post-9/11 efforts 
     to follow terrorist money.
       The Patriot Act approved by Congress after the attacks 
     emphasized providing new authorities for the Bush 
     administration to track and choke off terrorist funds around 
     the world. One part of the act, dealing specifically with 
     terrorist money, was described by the Treasury Department as 
     the most ``significant [anti-money-laundering] law'' since a 
     1970 law requiring banks to report cash transactions over 
     $10,000.
       That section of the Patriot Act required the Bush 
     administration to ``adopt regulations to encourage further 
     cooperation among financial institutions, their regulatory 
     authorities, and law enforcement authorities'' to track 
     terrorist-related money laundering.
       In testimony before Congress in early 2002, Juan C. Zarate, 
     deputy assistant Treasury secretary in charge of terrorism 
     and violent crime, discussed how the global exchange of 
     information was a key element in choking off their source of 
     funds.
       He cited a special international meeting hosted a month 
     after the attacks by the International Financial Crimes 
     Enforcement Network, ``to eliminate existing impediments to 
     exchanging information'' between financial institutions and 
     to find solutions to the challenges of tracking terrorist 
     funds.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Well, we just heard it. It's okay to leak classified 
information. New York Times, it's okay. Democrat Party, no problem. 
That is what the power of the press should be all about. We need them 
now more than ever, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I disagree with that.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Leaking classified information is wrong.
  Mr. McGOVERN. That is not what I said.
  Mr. SESSIONS. And the----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas 
controls the time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we are asking for all Members of Congress 
to universally say today we believe the leaking of classified 
information is wrong. And that is what we are here for today. I am 
disappointed that we have Members of this body that say that is what a 
free press is all about, to leak classified information.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. It is a real sad day in this House, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, this country is witnessing disgraceful and illegal leaks 
of classified programs and processes that have successfully protected 
this country from attacks since September 11, 2001.
  The evidence is printed in black and white in our own newspapers. 
Revealing those classified programs is very damaging to our Nation and 
to the safety and security of our citizens. I believe those reports 
revealing successful classified tools to combat terrorism will also 
cost millions and millions of dollars as well as the loss of safety. It 
is simply wrong. It is illegal.
  The gentleman from Ohio pointed out that this is not the first time 
leaks have occurred.

                              {time}  1330

  It should be the last. It must be stopped now. In fact, Mr. Speaker, 
it is my hope that the Department of Justice will convene a grand jury 
and provide immunity to the papers, to the editors and to the reporters 
if, and only if, they will reveal their government sources, the real 
cause of the leaks. Then I hope we will prosecute them, and I hope that 
the judge will hold them in contempt if they fail to produce these 
sources.
  I believe these government leakers are politically motivated. They 
are doing it to embarrass this administration, and this is why the 
minority wants to protect them. The leakers were not successful, nor 
were the papers. They have not embarrassed this administration, but the 
leakers have damaged the security and our relationship with our 
partners.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to send a strong message condemning these 
leaks. We must stop the leakers, the government leakers, because they 
jeopardize us all.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope we pass this rule and we pass this bill and send 
a very strong message that we will not tolerate leaks coming from our 
government that harm our citizens.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of clarification, I 
yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the record, I just want to state that 
I deeply resent the gentleman from Texas deliberately mischaracterizing 
what I said here on the House floor; and let me repeat for him what I 
said: That no one in this House supports the disclosure of classified 
information that could endanger the lives of Americans.
  I would simply say to the gentleman from Texas that the American 
people are sick and tired of the smears that have gone on here. We can 
have a debate. You don't need to smear or mischaracterize what I said.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

[[Page 13625]]


  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding me this time and for her leadership on our committee.
  Mr. Speaker, today we debate a resolution with far-reaching 
implications. It affirms the legal authority for the so-called 
Terrorist Finance Tracking program. It would also condemn the 
unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Finally, it sets the 
expectation that news outlets will yield to the government's decision 
whether or not to publish stories with classified information.
  A vote in favor of this resolution would affirm each of these points: 
Assertions about a classified program that cannot be proved or 
disproved with the limited information available; assertions that 
implicitly threaten the freedom of press enshrined in our Constitution.
  Because of the closed rule, Members are prevented from correcting its 
inaccuracies. So if the choice is simply an up-or-down vote, the 
resolution must be voted down.
  Mr. Speaker, it is unclear how the information disclosed by the Wall 
Street Journal and New York Times and several other newspapers around 
the country differed from what was already in the public record.
  As the Boston Globe documented yesterday, anyone with an Internet 
connection could have read the President's executive order authorizing 
increased efforts to track terrorist financing.
  Public testimony to Congress has described how the administration is 
actively utilizing wire transfers and other financial transactions to 
track terrorists around the globe. As one former U.S. diplomat noted, 
``We have spent the last four years bragging how effective we have been 
in tracking terrorist financing.''
  Tracking financial transactions is a general principle of 
counterterrorism. The question should be the specific ways this 
administration uses this tool.
  The administration's actions have indicated consistently that, in a 
time of war, it is above the law. This raises the concern over how well 
we as a Nation strike the balance between security and civil liberty 
and how we scrutinize the outcome.
  This leads to a second, important point. Consultation and oversight 
by the full House and Senate Intelligence Committees is required to 
check the potential for abuse of power. It is not clear this happened 
as the resolution asserts.
  Many Members sitting on those panels do not think the limited 
information given to them meets the required threshold of consultation. 
Without that, this body cannot judge the program's legal basis, nor 
ensure a balance is struck between security and civil liberties.
  Notwithstanding information already in the public domain, some 
government officials may have disclosed classified information about 
this program. As a result, the Director of National Intelligence has 
begun a classified investigation. Anyone who leaked this information 
should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
  Recent history is not encouraging, however. Three years ago next 
month, classified information was deliberately leaked to the press for 
political purposes by one or more senior White House officials. The 
intelligence community expressed outrage over the disclosure of Valerie 
Plame. A network of U.S. intelligence sources developed over the course 
of several decades was endangered.
  At no time did the House leadership bring a resolution to the floor 
condemning the leak. Every effort by Democrats to investigate the 
incident was blocked. While the resolution before us references other 
past leaks of classified information by name, it remains silent about 
this particular incident.
  Mr. Speaker, the fundamental challenge facing our Nation in the 
aftermath of 9/11 is how to guarantee the security of our citizens 
without sacrificing the fundamental principles upon which this great 
Nation is founded. Guaranteeing security is about the end goal. 
Guaranteeing those fundamental principles is about how we get there. We 
cannot allow either principle to erode, and the wisdom of including 
both in our Nation's founding document indicates that our greatest 
leaders did not see these ideas as contradictory.
  My local newspaper, the Sacramento Bee, has an editorial of their own 
this morning which speaks to this subject, and I will insert the full 
text into the record at the end, but it reads in part, ``The first 
amendment's durability rests not only on its text but on a long-
standing unwritten bargain between government and the press that both 
will do their best to avoid straying over that line.''
  I could not agree more. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and 
the underlying resolution.

                     Editorial: Who's Overreaching?

       President Bush has condemned as ``disgraceful'' several 
     newspapers'' reports about a government program that monitors 
     international financial transactions. Some congressional 
     Republicans go further: Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky accused 
     the New York Times of ``treason'' and Senate Intelligence 
     Committee Chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas wants intelligence 
     agencies to assess the extent of damage to national security.
       What's ironic about this is, first, that the news reports, 
     while they added much detail, merely described a program 
     that's been no secret to anyone who has followed the 
     administration's anti-terrorist efforts. And if there's any 
     investigative tool that most Americans would probably agree 
     is a proper one, it's tracking suspected terrorist finances.
       A major component of that tool has been a Belgium-based 
     database called SWIFT--Society for Worldwide Interbank 
     Financial Telecommunication--that tracks millions of 
     financial' transfers, many of them between this country and 
     others. SWIFT serves as a clearinghouse for financial 
     institutions worldwide. The president was infuriated because, 
     he said, disclosure of the program to tap into SWIFT's 
     database ``does great harm to . . . America'' by tipping off 
     suspects.
       That's debatable.
       Amid the hue and cry from the White House and Capitol Hill, 
     less fevered voices tried to put things in perspective. Roger 
     Cressey, a former U.S. counterterrorism official, said the 
     White House is ``overreaching,'' that the SWIFT program ``has 
     been in the public domain before.'' And a former U.S. 
     diplomat, Victor Comras, who was involved at the United 
     Nations in efforts to combat terrorist financing, told the 
     Boston Globe: ``A lot of people were aware that this was 
     going on,'' and that ``unless they [terrorists] were pretty 
     dumb, they had to assume'' their transactions were being 
     monitored.
       That makes sense. And so do the frenzied calls to crack 
     down on the news media, at least in a politically partisan 
     sense.
       Never mind that some members of Congress had been briefed 
     on the program and that all Americans have known for years 
     about the Government's efforts to uncover terrorist financial 
     movements and seize assets.
       This issue provides a convenient campaign weapon for 
     supporters of the Bush administration to use against ``soft-
     on-terrorism'' officeholders, especially Democrats, and 
     against critics in the news media. All of the frothing in 
     Washington raises the possibility that some in Congress will 
     seek to muzzle the press with legislation, subpoenas or other 
     means of intimidation. The long-term effects of such actions 
     might stifle the free flow of information in a society that 
     treasures it, but whose current administration not only has 
     an overdeveloped passion for secrecy but has used that 
     secrecy to cover an array of abuses, including the abuse of 
     people in U.S. custody, some of whom turned out to be 
     innocent.
       Such actions have tarnished America's reputation and 
     subverted its values. They deserve to be held up to the light 
     of day, no matter how unflattering the result may be to those 
     now in power.
       The line between what's fair to publish and what might hurt 
     national security is a blurry one. The First Amendment's 
     durability rests not only on its text, but on a long-standing 
     unwritten bargain between government and the press that both 
     will do their best to avoid straying over that line. The 
     burden is on an administration that has gone much too far in 
     the name of national security to show that news organizations 
     have done the same in the name of press freedom. That's not 
     evident.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, following the absolutely horrific attacks on our Nation 
of 9/11, the news media condemned our government for not connecting the 
dots on how we could have prevented those attacks. We have had 
government employees who spoke of their inability to gather necessary 
information or to

[[Page 13626]]

share that information with others in government.
  The 9/11 Commission stated the need to be more aggressive in 
gathering information on those who seek to murder our fellow citizens. 
To address this problem, Congress authorized the administration to take 
all appropriate measures to track down the terrorists; and the 
administration has done so, with the appropriate oversight by our 
Intelligence Committees.
  But now some in government service who have been entrusted with Top 
Secret classified information have repeatedly taken it upon themselves 
to illegally leak those secrets; and they have leaked those secrets to 
a news media, some of them all too willing to give our playbook to the 
enemy, giving them the opportunity to adapt and to evade, the same news 
media that had previously condemned our government's inability to 
uncover terrorist plots.
  By illegally leaking and irresponsibly publishing our secrets, the 
lives of our fellow citizens, our fellow Americans and our brave men 
and women in uniform who defend our freedom are endangered.
  It is certainly disappointing, but not surprising, that my colleagues 
on the Democratic side see this issue in light of how it might be used 
to their political advantage, rather than wondering how it might 
seriously undermine our national security.
  I would urge my colleagues to send a very strong message that this 
Congress will not stand idly by while loose lips are allowed to cost 
innocent lives.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member 
Slaughter for your extraordinary leadership on not just this subject 
but countless subjects dealing with the liberties of American citizens.
  Last night in the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter said that this was 
an historic moment. I could not agree more with that fact.
  This does not call for hyperbole or hyperventilation or fancy 
rhetorical flourishes. This particular measure has the weight that must 
have existed at the time that the Founding Fathers and Mothers of this 
country gave birth to the first amendment of the United States 
Constitution.
  If there had been no reporting in the free press during the period of 
the colonies as to what King George and those persons were doing, there 
may never have been an American Revolution.
  Almost exactly 35 years ago, the eminent Mr. Justice Potter Stewart 
in the Pentagon Papers said this: ``In the absence of the governmental 
checks and balances present in other areas of our national life, the 
only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in the areas 
of national defense and international affairs may lie in an enlightened 
citizenry, in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can 
here protect the values of democratic government,'' he wrote.
  He continued, ``For this reason, it is perhaps here that a press that 
is alert, aware, and free most vitally serves the basic purpose of the 
first amendment. For without an informed and free press, there cannot 
be an enlightened people.''
  I have had the distinct privilege of being the president of an 
international organization, the Organization for Security and 
Cooperation in Europe, its parliamentary assembly that Ms. Slaughter 
and others are members of as well; and during that period I was the 
lead election monitor in places where democracy is trying to find root 
but in places where journalists courageously went forward to offer 
information that should be offered against those administrations, 
Belarus being an example of that, where there is no free press and 
where the people cannot rise up, as they did in Ukraine where the press 
played a major role.
  I believe this administration operates on the premise the best 
defense is a good offense. It is never any accountability with them. It 
is always somebody else did something. A guy lost his election to one 
of our distinguished colleagues from Utah last week. He said the devil 
was the reason that he did not have his campaign money. Maybe it is the 
devil that makes them do this.
  We have flag burning proposals for constitutional amendment. We have 
gay marriage proposals for constitutional amendment. Yet when it comes 
to the basic freedom and liberty of this country, the press, we are 
presented with a resolution that condemns them. That is all it does. It 
does not sanction. It condemns them.
  It is our opportunity to vent and say little things about The New 
York Times. Please add The Washington Times. Please add The Wall Street 
Journal. Please add other media entities that have reported along these 
lines.
  I do not believe in what Fox News says, but I believe, and I do, for 
their right to say it.
  You know better than to seek to amend the first amendment, and let us 
look at this resolution.

                              {time}  1345

  It is factually inaccurate when you say, ``Whereas appropriate 
Members of Congress, including the members of the Committee on 
Intelligence of the Senate and House of Representatives.'' I am a 
member of that committee. You say that they were briefed, and I am here 
to tell you that every member of that committee was not briefed on this 
particular program.
  But I want you to listen to Ben Franklin. I want all of you to listen 
to Ben Franklin. He said, ``Those who would give up essential liberty 
to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor 
safety.''
  Find all of the leakers, prosecute them, put them in jail, but let a 
free press stand in this Nation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, last night at the Rules Committee we had 
an opportunity to digest a lot of information about this, not only 
about the program but also about, theoretically, who knew what, where, 
and when. It is my understanding that every single member of the 
Intelligence House Committee received an invitation to attend a 
briefing. That is not an indication that every single member attended 
that open invitation.
  I would allow the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), 1 minute.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague for yielding. I have got the list 
of who was briefed, when they were briefed. The first briefing of the 
Intelligence Committee goes back to March of 2002, where the chairman 
and then the former ranking member of the committee were briefed. I 
have the briefing dates for Members, of when members of the committee 
were briefed. I have the dates for when the staff was briefed on the 
HPSCI Committee.
  Staff was briefed as early as March of 2002. Staff was briefed in 
2003, 2005, 2005, 2006, 2006, and 2006.
  Alcee, these records indicate that you also had the opportunity and 
you were at a briefing session on this program.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Is the gentleman referring to the financial 
services program, as offered?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. On the financial services program, that is correct.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I would like to see that exact date, and I 
am here to tell you that we didn't receive such a briefing. And if you 
can tell me that this resolution holds that every member was briefed, I 
am here to tell you that that is not true.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the chairman 
of the Financial Services Committee, asked us to say where we disagree 
with this resolution. I would be glad to tell you that.
  This resolution makes factual assertions that I do not believe any 
Member of the House can confidently and honestly make, and certainly 
not more than four or five could even pretend.

[[Page 13627]]

  It says, for example, in the resolved clause that we know, those of 
us who would be voting for this, as a fact ``that the program has been 
conducted in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and 
executive orders; that appropriate safeguards have been used and been 
instituted to protect individuals' civil liberties.''
  I don't believe any Member knows that. Maybe one or two will claim 
that. Do Members feel free to vote for things and say they know things 
which they don't?
  It is also true in the whereases: ``Whereas the terrorist finance 
program consists of the appropriate and limited use of transaction 
information while maintaining respect for individual privacy.''
  That may or may not be the case, but Members here don't know it. And 
let me talk about briefings, by the way. I am the senior Democrat on 
Financial Services, and I have been for 3\1/2\ years. I was, about a 
month ago, asked to a briefing. I was asked to a briefing and told that 
this was about to be made public and, therefore, they were going to 
brief me. But that if I listened to the briefing, when it was made 
public I couldn't talk about it.
  Yes, I did not accept that briefing. It was a briefing only because 
it was about to be made public, and then I could not talk about it. But 
even if I had had the briefing, I do not believe I could in good 
conscience say these things.
  Now, there are Members here who may have such faith in their 
administration that they will claim to say things which I know they 
don't know. Yes, faith-based programs are very useful, but I don't 
think faith-based resolutions do our job.
  So I don't know that these things are wrong, but I disagree with 
making factual assertions about the program that may not be correct.
  There is another factual assertion that may not be correct. And I 
know there has been a lot of concern about the Times. In the Republican 
majority's resolution there is an attack on the Times. It doesn't 
mention them. Quite sensitively, it doesn't mention the Times, but it 
talks about one of the most damaging allegations I have seen about a 
leak.
  It says, on the bottom of page 2: ``In 1998, disclosure of classified 
information regarding efforts to monitor the communication of Osama bin 
Laden eliminated a valuable source of intelligence information on al 
Qaeda's activities.'' Now, that is a serious accusation to make against 
the Times. It is, of course, the Washington Times. Somehow, that 
adjective sort of disappeared.
  There has been a lot of talk about the New York Times. It is the 
Washington Times who is referred to in your own resolution, Mr. 
Speaker, as having done a far more damaging specific thing. But the 
Washington Post came to the defense of the Washington Times and said, 
no, that was already known. Well, that is in controversy.
  I am not prepared to vote for the resolution which accuses and 
convicts the Washington Times of having foiled our efforts to find 
Osama bin Laden when I don't know that as a fact. The Washington Post 
says it is unfair to the Washington Times.
  You may be prepared, Mr. Speaker, to condemn the Washington Times so 
clearly for undermining our efforts to find Osama bin Laden. I am not.
  But we are only here partly about the specifics. This is an outrage, 
the procedure. I do not understand how Members can hold up their heads 
when they advocate this.
  Well over half of the Democratic Members saw this resolution for the 
first time at 4:15. There was no consultation about the draft. It was 
drafted entirely in a partisan way. We looked at it and said, we agree 
with some of it and not others. Yes, I think almost all Democrats agree 
that we should track the financial doings.
  We have a resolution which takes much of the language from the 
Republican resolution and says that. It says we are in favor of 
tracking things, and we condemn leaks. We think it is wrong for people 
to leak. So we would like to have that in there. But we don't want to 
have to say, at the same time, that the Bush administration has done 
everything perfectly. We don't want to make some of the criticisms of 
the media that you make, including this denunciation of the Washington 
Times.
  We are asking for a chance, in a democracy, to put forward our 
resolution where we could make clear that we disagree with some of the 
leaking; where we make clear that we think you should track the 
financial records of the terrorists; but we do not want to have to say 
that we also agree with the administration. That would seem to me a 
reasonable choice.
  Mr. Speaker, to the discredit of the Republican Party, you have 
denied us that choice. This is not democracy, this is plebiscitary 
democracy. You demand a ``yes'' or ``no.'' Mubarak and Peron and Hugo 
Chavez would be proud of your understanding of the democratic process.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, you know, we do talk about disclosure, 
unauthorized disclosure of information. But I fail to see where this 
resolution talks about any newspaper where we mention them. We 
intentionally chose not to do that because that is not what the 
resolution is about today, Mr. Speaker.
  Time after time we have heard our Democrat colleagues mention 
newspapers by name. That is not what this was about. We are simply 
trying to say that we believe that information that is considered 
private, sensitive, and that should not be disclosed should not be 
done.
  It would be very simple for us to understand that the President may 
say, you know, we have spies that work for the United States, but if he 
disclosed who they were, what they did, how they went about doing their 
business, where they were located, who they came into contact with and 
their MO about how they did things, that clearly would be something 
that would be out of order.
  So I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, we intentionally have not tried to 
chastise anyone. We are simply saying we believe the unauthorized 
disclosure should not be revealed.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
McCotter).
  Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, once again, the Nation finds itself 
engaged in a world war against abject evil. And in the process, it is 
always wise to look back to the last world war against abject evil, one 
which was led by the greatest Democratic President, one of the greatest 
Presidents ever, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
  We must learn not only from the past how to win this struggle but we 
must look to the past to see that we do not repeat some of the mistakes 
that were made by the government at the time, most notably the 
internment of our fellow citizens of Japanese descent in internment 
camps.
  In that process, I do believe that the press has an invaluable role. 
It has an invaluable role as a watchdog of democracy and liberty, and 
it has an expressed constitutional right to do so. What this resolution 
I believe would help to do, however, is to rectify the current mistake 
that is being made in a time of war, whereas classified information is 
being broadcast on the basis of potential abuse rather than actual 
abuse.
  I think that we must further that debate and come back to the 
realization that potential abuse is a very nebulous standard and which, 
fortunately, was not applied in World War II to classified information, 
or there would have been no Manhattan Project.
  Further, I think it is also wise to look back at the relationship 
between the government and the press at the time of World War II. 
President Roosevelt was fond of bringing reporters into his office, and 
he would engage in off-the-record conversations with them so that they 
were aware that he trusted them and that then he could reciprocate that 
trust to the reporters.
  At one point, some of the off-the-record briefing appeared in a 
column in a paper. At the next meeting of the assembled press in the 
Oval Office, Franklin Roosevelt gave that reporter a gift. It was an 
iron cross.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge that we support this rule, this resolution, and 
that we

[[Page 13628]]

all continue to encourage the debate where the differentiation between 
potential abuse and actual abuse and the Nation's interest in the 
defense of our citizens' lives is ever remembered.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request 
to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to state for the record my objection 
to the Republicans' refusal to be indignant about the outing of a spy 
by the administration.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield for a unanimous consent request to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
the rule and this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote on a resolution that is 
allegedly intended to reaffirm Congress's support for stemming the flow 
of money to terrorists. I support efforts by this Administration to cut 
the financial supply lines to terrorists.
  But the resolution before us today is really just an open-faced 
attack on America's free press for telling the American people what its 
government is doing.
  After 9/11, the Bush Administration announced that one of the ways it 
would go after terrorists was by cutting off their funding sources. A 
major part of this effort has been monitoring suspect international 
financial transactions.
  I believe that, at the time, this was the correct decision. We can 
and must do everything we legally can to protect the country from those 
who wish to bring us harm.
  The Administration's efforts to monitor financial transactions have 
been a frequent topic of public discussion: By members of the 
Administration; in open, on the record Congressional testimony; and in 
the United Nations.
  However, to date, I am not aware of any harsh recriminations from the 
President or Republicans in Congress as a result of any of these 
discussions over the last few years.
  But now that the program has been discussed in the New York Times and 
other newspapers, the radical right wing Republican enemies of a free 
press in America have come out swinging--again.
  Congress had a choice when the NY Times reported on the SWIFT 
program. It could have announced hearings on the effectiveness of the 
SWIFT program and on the impact of public reporting on the SWIFT 
program. But it did not do that.
  This extremist Congress instead has chosen a different, but very 
familiar, path--a partisan political attack for which it has become 
famous.
  The Bush Administration and this republican-controlled Congress 
represent the most partisan and most anti-free press Republican party 
this nation has seen since the days of Richard Nixon and his infamous 
`enemies list.'
  The fact remains that this president and this Republican Congress 
wants to manipulate the press to its advantage through the use of 
covert propaganda and through lying about intelligence and other 
matters, but it wants to curb the press's role in communicating to the 
American people information about the actions of its government.
  That sounds more like the Soviet Union before the wall came down than 
the America that I know and love and whose freedom, and free press, is 
so revered around the world.
  The fact is that the party in control of this Congress is out of gas 
when it comes to leading, they are out of gas when it comes to big bold 
new ideas to re-energize America.
  They have resorted, nearly every day now, to their tired old whipping 
posts, including the free press, in a desperate effort to hold on to 
their power, an awesome power that they have failed to use to help 
America.
  As this bill's sponsor, Mr. Oxley, so wisely stated earlier, we do 
need accountability in Government.
  The President promised to hold those accountable in his 
Administration involved in leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent 
to the press. He has yet to do that. Instead he and his rubberstamp 
Congress choose to go after leaked information only when it suits their 
political agenda.
  We have yet to hold anyone accountable for the falsified intelligence 
about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Instead we get the rubberstamp 
Congress's version of a weapon of Mass Distraction just in time for the 
November elections.
  This Congress has not held anyone accountable for pulling military 
resources away from Afghanistan to prepare for the unjustified war and 
occupation of Iraq, which allowed Osama bin Laden to escape capture.
  If only the Administration and its Republican allies in Congress were 
as aggressive in attacking Osama bin Laden as they are when attacking 
the press, we might be safer as a nation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).
  Mr. FEENEY. I thank my friend from Texas, and I do want to make a few 
points here today.
  One thing you have to give my Democratic friends credit for is their 
consistency on the war on terror. They have been consistently mad. They 
were mad we didn't do more surveillance-wise before 9/11 to stop that 
attack; and they have been mad that we have done too much surveillance 
since 9/11, which has helped successfully stop another attack, 
including attacks in Toronto and New York most recently.
  But I rise here today to talk about the resolution itself. What this 
resolution does basically is to tell you, if you operate a flight 
school and you have reason to believe that the people learning to fly 
planes want to fly planes into American buildings to kill Americans, 
you shouldn't warn your students that they may be under surveillance. 
You should tell the FBI.
  This resolution sends a message to all the people that operate hotels 
that if you are having people stay with you, paying you rent, and you 
have reason to believe they are putting together an attack on American 
civilians, you shouldn't warn them that they may be under surveillance. 
You should tell the FBI.
  If you are a chemistry professor and you have reason to believe that 
a student is putting together weapons of mass destruction, like 
biological or chemical weapons, you shouldn't warn your student that 
they may be subject to surveillance. You should tell the FBI.
  If you are an American banker and you have reason to believe that 
your client is depositing money to fund terrorist activities, you 
shouldn't warn your client that the American Government may be watching 
you. You should tell the FBI.
  And, yes, it does tell American newspapers that if you are loyal, you 
should not deliberately give sensitive and secret information to the 
entire world of people that want to do us harm.
  Finally, it says to every employee of the United States Government 
that if you deliberately leak sensitive information that you have 
access to that you may have committed treason and you may be a traitor.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I think it would be instructive for all of 
our colleagues to let me read briefly the synopsis of this resolution: 
Supporting intelligence and law enforcement programs to track 
terrorists and terrorist finances conducted consistent with Federal law 
and with appropriate Congressional consultation, as we heard from 
Chairman Hoekstra a minute ago, 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.
  Mr. Speaker, we heard a little while ago from the gentleman, the very 
intelligent gentleman from Massachusetts, that resolved number 2 he had 
some concerns about. Resolved number 2 basically says, finds that the 
Terrorist Finance Tracking Program has been conducted in accordance 
with all applicable law, regulations and executive orders, that 
appropriate safeguards and reviews have been instituted to protect 
individuals' civil liberties.
  He is concerned about that. I grant him that concern. I am not 
concerned about it. I am sure if he votes against this rule or against 
the resolution, he

[[Page 13629]]

can explain this to the people of Massachusetts.
  Mr. Speaker, I can explain also my support to the people in the 11th 
District of Georgia because, mainly, of resolved number 4, and this is 
it. It 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 leaked to them, such as the Terrorist 
Finance Tracking Program.
  I don't care who it is, Mr. Chairman, of what political party or who 
they work for. If they are leaking information and putting our men and 
women who are doing the fighting and dying for us, putting their lives 
in danger, then we need to out them and prosecute them. The media, and 
we are not naming names with regard to whether it is The Washington 
Post or New York Times, needs to show some responsibility.
  Support the rule and the underlying resolution.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has more 
requests for time?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we are through with all of our speakers 
that we might have. We will then wait for the gentlewoman from New York 
to close, and then we will do so.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' 
on the previous question so that I can amend the rule to allow the 
House to consider a resolution introduced by Financial Services Ranking 
Member Barney Frank instead of the press-bashing resolution made in 
order under this rule.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the amendment and a 
description immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the Frank substitute resolution expresses 
Congress' support for intelligence and law enforcement programs that 
track terrorists and terrorist finances and are conducted consistent 
with Federal law and with appropriate Congressional consultation.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can consider this 
resolution instead of H. Res. 896. Again, vote ``no'' on the previous 
question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield all time remaining 
to the Chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the day after President Bush gave his 
stirring address right here to a joint session of Congress on September 
20, 2001, The New York Times editorialized, and I quote, what promises 
to be a long and painful fight against a ruthless enemy.
  Mr. Speaker, this was true then, and it remains true today. So it 
goes without saying that any information and any intelligence exposed 
to the enemy directly hinders our prosecution of the war and directly 
threatens the safety of Americans. By relying on illegal leaks of 
classified information to publish the details of our government's 
program to track terrorist financing, some of our country's biggest 
newspapers, led by The New York Times, have imposed their 
interpretation of the, quote-unquote, public interest on a public whom 
I am confident to say would much rather be safe than be all-knowing.
  Let us be clear, those very newspapers that spilled barrels of ink 
about the government not connecting the dots before September 11, 2001, 
are now making it much harder to collect, much less connect, the dots 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, by all accounts, this was a legal, effective and narrow 
program that nabbed high-value terrorists. There were no reported 
abuses by the program, and there was no compelling reason to publish 
it, which is cause for serious concern. If officials leak information 
on programs such as this and newspapers print it, what won't be leaked 
and what won't be printed?
  The case was made to newspapers by Democrats, Republicans, and people 
inside and outside of the administration that publication of this story 
would expose a critical program.
  Our former colleague, Lee Hamilton, and his cochairman of the 9/11 
Commission, Tom Kean, were very clear. They were among those people who 
made the case. Mr. Kean said in an interview with Byron York, there are 
a number of programs which we are using to try to disrupt terrorist 
activities, and you never know which one is going to be successful. We 
knew that this one already had been.
  Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely critical that we send this very strong 
message that this behavior cannot continue.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

       Previous Question for H. Res. 896, Rule for 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 finance.

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:
       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 900) 
     supporting intelligence and law enforcement programs to track 
     terrorists and terrorist finances conducted consistent with 
     Federal law and with appropriate congressional consultation. 
     The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and 
     preamble to final adoption without intervening motion or 
     demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 
     Services; and (2) one motion to recommit which may not be 
     instructions.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution * * * [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule * * * When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question

[[Page 13630]]

     on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.

                          ____________________