Congressional Record: June 29, 2006 (House)
Page H4817-H4827                  


                              {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

[[Page H4818]]

     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 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.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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

[[Page H4819]]

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 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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  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.

[[Page H4820]]

  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 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.

[[Page H4821]]

  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 S (Binde

                           (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 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.

[[Page H4822]]

  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).
  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

[[Page H4823]]

     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 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

[[Page H4824]]

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.
  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.

[[Page H4825]]

  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 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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  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 asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  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.

[[Page H4826]]

  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 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,

[[Page H4827]]

     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 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.

                          ____________________



Congressional Record: June 29, 2006 (House)
Page H4875-H4890                  



 
     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

       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 legitimate intelligence 
     capabilities;
       Whereas effective intelligence depends on cooperation with 
     foreign governments and individuals who trust the United 
     States to protect their confidences;
       Whereas the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive 
     intelligence information, including

[[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.

                          ____________________



Congressional Record: June 29, 2006 (House)
Page H4892-H4893               



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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending business is the vote on adoption 
of House Resolution 895, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 183, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 357]

                               YEAS--227

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Higgins
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--183

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta

[[Page H4893]]


     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Boyd
     Cannon
     Davis (TN)
     Dicks
     Evans
     Everett
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Ford
     Gerlach
     Green, Gene
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     McHenry
     Moran (KS)
     Osborne
     Rogers (AL)
     Rush
     Sherwood

                              {time}  1927

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 357, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________