Compassionate Visitor Visa Act

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

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. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Reserving the right to object.

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.

I will object now.

I ask unanimous consent that the House allow us to present our substitute for a vote.

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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

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. 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.)

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. 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. 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. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

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).

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman made it a point to mention me and will not let me respond.

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.

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.

I will yield to the gentleman exactly as he yielded to me. No.

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.

May I ask, the gentleman has only one more speaker?

Me, too.

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?

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.

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.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Is a motion to recommit in order at this time?

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?

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.

Mr. Speaker, I mourn democracy.

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.

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

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. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for 5 minutes.

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.

I object, and I withdraw my unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

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. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

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. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. 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. Speaker, I believe I have the right to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Me.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.

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.

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

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. 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

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. 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.

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.

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.