Supporting Intelligence and Law Enforcement Programs to Track Terrorists and Terrorist Finances
SUPPORTING INTELLIGENCE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS TO TRACK TERRORISTS AND TERRORIST FINANCES -- (House of Representatives - June 29, 2006)
BREAK IN THE TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN THE TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/