For Immediate Release: June 29, 2006
REP. FRANK FLOOR STATEMENT ON
SUPPORTING INTELLIGENCE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS TO TRACK TERRORISTS AND
TERRORIST FINANCES
(House of Representatives - June 29, 2006)
---
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. 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.
###
The Committee oversees all components of the nation's housing
and financial services sectors including banking, insurance, real estate, public
and assisted housing, and securities. The Committee continually reviews the laws
and programs relating to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
the Federal Reserve Bank, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac, and international development and finance agencies such as the
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The Committee also ensures
enforcement of housing and consumer protection laws such as the U.S. Housing
Act, the Truth In Lending Act, the Housing and Community Development Act, the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the
Community Reinvestment Act, and financial privacy laws.