PatriotOne
03-09-2008, 11:32 AM
For those who have the attention span, there is some very interesting information concerning "terrorist" attacks in this house floor speech and how the Bush Administration refuses to even address concerns submitted by Congressional members. Congress being blocked from asking questions!
Some VERY interesting info re: Oklahoma bombing, the first WTC attacks and 9/11 attacks. Strangly enough the guy still doesn't seem to of put the big picture together but surely he is getting suspicious by now. Come on Congressman, you can do it....think, think :confused: Okay, here's a clue Congressman.....the Bush admin is refusing to cooperate because they don't want you too know the truths behind each and everyone of these of these so-called "terrorist" attacks".
[Congressional Record: February 26, 2008 (House)]
[Page H1065-H1072]
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2008/rohr022608.html
ADMINISTRATION NOT COOPERATING WITH CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor tonight with a
heavy heart. The nature of the allegations I make speaks poorly of this
administration. In my heart of hearts, I have always wanted this
administration to succeed, but the issue at hand is of such magnitude
that the American people need to know what is being done and what
precedents are being set.
In my tenure as a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, both as chairman and ranking member of an investigative
subcommittee, I have witnessed firsthand behavior by the Bush
administration which I find deeply troubling.
The disdain and uncooperative nature that this administration has
shown toward Congress, including Republican Members, is so egregious
that I can no longer assume that it is simply bureaucratic incompetence
or isolated mistakes. Rather, I have come to the sad conclusion that
this administration has intentionally obstructed Congress' rightful and
constitutional duties.
Tonight I will discuss some serious examples of this administration's
contemptuous disregard for the authority delegated to Congress by the
Constitution. This bad attitude has consistently manifested itself in a
sophomoric resentment toward Congress' constitutional role as an equal
branch of government. The result has been an executive branch too
insecure to let Congress do its job, an executive branch that sees
Congress, even when Republicans held the majority, as a rival and a
spoiler, rather than as elected representatives of the American people
playing a rightful role in establishing policy for our great country.
Unfortunately, when the President of the United States rejects the
legitimacy of congressional prerogatives, there are serious
consequences. Tonight, I will provide examples of how this
administration for the past 7 years has undercut congressional
investigators, has lied to Members of Congress, and has forged ahead
with secret deals in spite of efforts and pleas by Congress to be
informed, if not involved.
In the last Congress, I was chairman of the Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. In
that capacity, I learned that in the time immediately leading up to the
bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, convicted Oklahoma
City bomber and murderer Terry Nichols had been in Cebu City in the
Philippines. His stay in Cebu City coincided with another visitor to
that city, al Qaeda's terrorist leader Ramsey Yousef. Interestingly,
both Nichols and Yousef used similar bombs and methods just 2 years
apart to blow up two American targets. Yousef was the mastermind of the
first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. Nichols was a
coconspirator in the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building in
1995.
By the way, I would like to acknowledge that today happens to be the
15-year anniversary of that first devastating attack on the World Trade
Center.
These individuals, one American and one Arab, were responsible for
planning two of the most lethal terrorist attacks on our countrymen in
our history. We are to believe that by coincidence they ended up in an
off-the-beaten-track city in the Southern Philippines? One doesn't have
to be a conspiracy nut to understand that this coincidence is certainly
worth looking into.
I started an official congressional investigation sanctioned by Henry
Hyde, then the chairman of the International Relations Committee, to
see whether Terry Nichols or his accomplice, Timothy McVeigh, had
foreign help in their murderous terrorist bombing of the Alfred Murrah
Building in Oklahoma City.
In light of the fact that Terry Nichols and Ramsey Yousef were both
in Cebu City at the same time prior to hauntingly similar terrorist
attacks, it was no stretch for a congressional investigative committee
to be looking into this matter. However, the Bush administration felt
quite differently. To those I had to deal with, it was ``case closed,
don't bother us.'' They had looked into the matter, and Congress should
simply and blindly accept their conclusion that there was no Nichols-
Yousef connection. ``Don't bother us.'' This was at times bureaucratic
laziness, and at other times it was clearly based on a disdain for
congressional investigations and authority.
During my investigation, I secured Ramsey Yousef's cell phone
records. The records were part of the phone calls that he made when he
was in that New York City area in the months just prior to the bombing
of the World Trade Center in 1993.
The phone records show that Ramsey Yousef made at least two phone
calls to a row house in Queens, New York.
[[Page H1066]]
That row house was occupied by the cousin of Terry Nichols' Filipina
wife. Let me repeat that. The terrorist bomber of the first World Trade
Center attack, the nephew of al Qaeda 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh
Mohammad, made phone calls to the same row house that was occupied by
Terry Nichols' cousins-in-law just 2 months before he exploded the bomb
in the garage of the World Trade Center 15 years ago. Another
coincidence?
I gave this information to the Department of Justice and since that
time have repeatedly sought their help in investigating this matter.
Time after time, my requests have gone unanswered or have just been
flatly denied.
I also asked the Department of Justice on numerous occasions to help
me investigate the name Samir Khahil. This name is on a list of
unindicted co-conspirators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,
again in connection with Ramsey Yousef.
It also is the name, by the way, of an Iraqi man in Oklahoma City who
at the time of the Oklahoma City bombing employed an Arab immigrant who
fits the description originally made by numerous witnesses as to John
Doe II.
This Oklahoma-based Iraqi lied, meaning the John Doe II look-alike,
lied to the investigators about his whereabouts at the time of the
Oklahoma City bombing, yet there was little if any follow-up on this
John Doe II look-alike. In fact, the FBI simply declared that John Doe
II never existed. The existence of John Doe II, let it be remembered,
was based on a sketch and sketches derived from witnesses on the scene
of the Oklahoma City bombing and the truck rental company in which that
bomb was placed on a truck from that truck rental company. Those
witnesses described a man who, as I say, looked very much like Samir
Khahil's employee.
Now, I have repeatedly asked the Department of Justice to tell me if
the Samir Khahil on the unindicted coconspirators list of the 1993
World Trade Center bombing is the same Samir Khahil who employed a man
originally identified as John Doe II, the bomber, the number two bomber
in the Oklahoma City bombing. The Justice Department's answer: ``It
would be too burdensome to find out if it was the same man.''
Further, we asked help in finding the Arab immigrant who looked like
John Doe II and the man who was employed by Samir Khahil. We traced him
to Boston, but we have had no support or cooperation in finding this
very possible terrorist, or at least terrorist suspect. He may well
have been working at Boston's Logan Airport on 9/11/01, the day that a
plane took off from that airport and was hijacked and crashed into the
World Trade Center. Another weird coincidence to the Oklahoma City
bombing. Another coincidence, yes.
You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to believe that these things
should be investigated. Instead, there has been no follow-through, no
interest. The case is closed, forget it, both in terms of Samir Khahil
and his Iraqi employer and employee; and both of these people, of
course, reside in the United States right now.
That is just a small taste of the deplorable lack of cooperation for
a legitimate congressional investigation. And it was no fluke. I didn't
just happen to snag some uncooperative Federal employee. No, this is
the level of non-cooperation Congress has learned to expect from this
administration.
Yes, Departments and agencies do have limited resources, and I
understand that. I used to work in the executive branch. So, yes, there
may be some better uses for and some good uses for those limited
resources and better uses for their time and investigators, rather than
just following up on leads that are provided by Members of Congress.
{time} 1715
You can hear someone explaining that. But the lack of cooperation
that we have had goes far beyond the fact that they are not going to
give their limited resources or even use some of their investigators to
track down what most of us would consider a very worthwhile lead,
especially considering that the terrorist that we are asking to look
into currently resides in the United States and may well have had
something to do with the bombing of the World Trade Center and the
bombing of the Oklahoma City building there.
But, again, a lot of my requests don't require a lot of time and
effort on the part of the executive branch, and I still have been
stonewalled. For the past year, for example, I have repeatedly
requested to interview the imprisoned terrorist Ramzi Yousef. He is in
Colorado and in strict lockup. He has been there for 10 years.
This would have taken no time and no resources from any executive
branch or Federal employee. None. This request is well within my
committee's jurisdiction as ranking member of the Investigative
Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
This request has been supported by the chairman of the Investigative
Subcommittee, the chairman of the full Foreign Affairs Committee, the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and the chairman of the
Intelligence Committee.
Such attention by Congress should be welcomed by this administration
and every administration. The legislative branch can help bring new
information to light and inform the public.
Nevertheless, the Department of Justice, consistent with its
treatment of congressional inquiries during the tenure of this
President, has dismissed this valid request. This request has been
treated with what can only be described as contempt and condescension.
The point is, unfortunately, that this rejectionist attitude is
typical. It is not that they don't have enough resources to help out,
to look into an easy matter to look into. It is just that they do not
want to cooperate with Congress, even when it's a Republican in
Congress, even when the Congress was controlled by a Republican
majority.
So, why would this administration obstruct congressional inquiries
such as this? Remember, Ramzi Yousef was the mastermind behind several
devastating terrorist attacks and plots against America. He led the
first murderous attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, as I say.
After fleeing to the Philippines, he and two other terrorists plotted
to kill thousands of Americans by blowing up 12 commercial airliners
over the Pacific at the same time. It was known as the Bojinka plot. It
was within 2 weeks of being executed when it was discovered and
thwarted by Philippine police.
Interestingly, the terrorist operation, the Bojinka plot, was to take
place about the same time as the Oklahoma City Federal building
bombing, perhaps on the same day. We don't know. Perhaps we should
know. Perhaps we should ask Ramzi Yousef about that.
Ramzi Yousef has been in Federal prison for over a decade. He is a
prisoner with a unique understanding of the al Qaeda terrorist
structure. He is the nephew of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of
the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center.
In 2006, when I was the chairman of the House Oversight
Investigations Subcommittee on the Foreign Affairs Committee, I was
investigating Yousef's movements and activities not only in the United
States but in the Philippines. I even traveled to the Philippines to
question authorities who had captured Yousef's roommate and
coconspirator in the Bojinka plot.
In spite of that fact and in spite of the fact that I was looking
into Yousef's terrorist activities and in spite of the fact that I had
obtained new information about Yousef's phone calls right here in the
United States and new information about his associates while he was in
the United States, the Department of Justice still dismisses the effort
and, more than that, they are obstructing a legitimate congressional
investigation, refusing to permit this elected Member of Congress, a
ranking member of a congressional investigating committee, to interview
a Federal prisoner. They refused access to Yousef claiming that there
is a ``ongoing investigation.''
This prisoner has been in jail for over 10 years. It is more likely
that what we have here is an ongoing coverup and not an ongoing
investigation. In fact, I have been told recently by a former member of
the Justice Department that they were told routinely simply to give
answers that there is an ongoing investigation even if no ongoing
investigation was underway, but simply using it as a phrase to dismiss
a request from Congress.
[[Page H1067]]
Well, this is outrageous, but it's typical of this administration.
This is a lot more than just a hurtful pride on my part of being turned
down.
This administration is setting a terrible precedent. What people have
to understand, when I am turned down like this, is when there is a
liberal Democrat in the White House, the President will have set that
Members of Congress can simply be dismissed, and that when they are
trying to do a congressional investigation need not be cooperated with,
in fact, can be obstructed. Is that the type of President that we want?
Is that acceptable? It shouldn't be acceptable to Democrats and it
shouldn't be acceptable to Republicans.
Doesn't Congress have a right to talk to Federal prisoners. Are these
the rules of engagement? Is it really the rules of engagement that we
want for our government that Members of Congress and the legislative
branch don't have a right to talk to Federal prisoners?
Well, that's apparently what the Bush administration is trying to
establish as the executive authority, as executive authority, the right
to deny congressional investigators access to Federal prisoners. The
danger of this should be easy to understand, both on my side of the
aisle, the Republican side, and the Democratic side of the aisle.
Again, the attitude, apparent in the treatment of this request, is
not an aberration or is it some sort of situation where this is not
really a representative way the President has acted with his authority.
No, I am afraid that's not the case.
This request was first made and denied when the Republicans
controlled the Congress and I was the chairman of the Investigative
Subcommittee.
Now Congress has a Democrat majority. In my position as ranking
member of the International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight
Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I have seen it
time and time again.
Our subcommittee chairman, Bill Delahunt from Massachusetts, read in
the newspaper that our President is negotiating a security agreement
with the Iraqi Prime Minister that will govern the future relationship
of our countries.
Now let me say that again. The chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee
on Foreign Affairs Committee is getting the information about a hugely
important foreign bilateral security agreement by reading the
newspaper. So, Chairman Delahunt conducted a hearing about the status
of such an agreement and invited the administration to send a witness
to testify before Congress.
How did the administration respond? They ignored the request. So the
hearing was held with a private panel of witnesses, and, yes, the
public has a right and an obligation to fully understand such
commitments that are being made by the President in our name.
In a democratic society, policy is made after having an open
dialogue. George Bush was elected President, not king.
In another attempt last month, our subcommittee held another hearing
on the Iraqi security agreement and, again, our panel invited and
pleaded with the administration to provide a witness. Their response?
Silence.
Our subcommittee held another, a third hearing on this topic. Again,
our subcommittee invited the administration to attend and explain to
Congress what kind of commitment our government has agreed to with the
government of Iraq. Even our full committee chairman wrote letters
asking for the administration to participate in the subcommittee
hearing. All the requests to the administration by our committee and by
the superiors in the full committee were ignored, except for one, and,
in one instance, where the contact was made, and I am sad to say that
once again this administration was less than honest on a matter of
national importance, Chairman Dela-
hunt's subcommittee was told by a White House staffer that the
administration's unwillingness to participate in hearings was because
``There is nothing to talk about because we haven't put pen to paper''
on security, because they haven't put the pen to paper on the security
agreement, supposedly.
Well, when confronted with the fact that the New York Times had
written a story saying that a 17-page agreement was being passed
around, this White House staffer backtracked and quibbled.
This is unacceptable, it's dishonest, and it's typical. It's like
saying there is an ongoing investigation; don't discuss anything
anymore with me. There is nothing going on here.
Now, there is something going on, just as, instead of talking and
trying to negotiate about what type of spokesman we could have at a
hearing, instead, what we get is an undermining of the congressional
right to oversee for the foreign policy decisions of this
administration.
This stonewalling prevailed until a few weeks ago, when Condoleezza
Rice, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a person and a leader who I
deeply admire, testified at a hearing of the full International
Relations Committee.
When asked about this issue, about witnesses not showing up from the
State Department and this administration to explain to us in public and
to discuss in public these very important agreements that are being
negotiated with Iraq, she pledged at that time that there would be
future witnesses dealing with this Iraqi agreement.
At least Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, feels secure
enough in this administration to do what's right and to talk directly
to Congress and to send her people over to talk to us.
Unfortunately, we had to go all the way to the Secretary of State
before we could get anybody in this administration to participate. Let
me note, I am a supporter of the President's Iraqi policies. I have
been a supporter since day one. I supported the surge, and I am not in
favor of some of the propositions made by my friends on the other side
of the aisle, which I consider would be a precipitous leaving of Iraq
and would cause damage, I believe.
But that's not the point. The point is, Congress has a legitimate
oversight responsibility and that the President of the United States
should be discussing in public so that the public could understand why
policy is being made rather than trying to secretly arrange a policy
agreement and then surprise everybody, you know, as a done deal. Sadly,
this administration's antipathy to the constitutional responsibilities
of the legislative branch of government does not stop and end with my
efforts and those of my subcommittee on investigations.
In October of last year, 22 of my colleagues and I wrote to the
Acting Attorney General, Peter Keisler, regarding the pending lie
detector test for former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger.
Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record, a copy of a letter concerning
making that request of Acting Attorney General Peter Keisler.
Continued next post.......................
Some VERY interesting info re: Oklahoma bombing, the first WTC attacks and 9/11 attacks. Strangly enough the guy still doesn't seem to of put the big picture together but surely he is getting suspicious by now. Come on Congressman, you can do it....think, think :confused: Okay, here's a clue Congressman.....the Bush admin is refusing to cooperate because they don't want you too know the truths behind each and everyone of these of these so-called "terrorist" attacks".
[Congressional Record: February 26, 2008 (House)]
[Page H1065-H1072]
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2008/rohr022608.html
ADMINISTRATION NOT COOPERATING WITH CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor tonight with a
heavy heart. The nature of the allegations I make speaks poorly of this
administration. In my heart of hearts, I have always wanted this
administration to succeed, but the issue at hand is of such magnitude
that the American people need to know what is being done and what
precedents are being set.
In my tenure as a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, both as chairman and ranking member of an investigative
subcommittee, I have witnessed firsthand behavior by the Bush
administration which I find deeply troubling.
The disdain and uncooperative nature that this administration has
shown toward Congress, including Republican Members, is so egregious
that I can no longer assume that it is simply bureaucratic incompetence
or isolated mistakes. Rather, I have come to the sad conclusion that
this administration has intentionally obstructed Congress' rightful and
constitutional duties.
Tonight I will discuss some serious examples of this administration's
contemptuous disregard for the authority delegated to Congress by the
Constitution. This bad attitude has consistently manifested itself in a
sophomoric resentment toward Congress' constitutional role as an equal
branch of government. The result has been an executive branch too
insecure to let Congress do its job, an executive branch that sees
Congress, even when Republicans held the majority, as a rival and a
spoiler, rather than as elected representatives of the American people
playing a rightful role in establishing policy for our great country.
Unfortunately, when the President of the United States rejects the
legitimacy of congressional prerogatives, there are serious
consequences. Tonight, I will provide examples of how this
administration for the past 7 years has undercut congressional
investigators, has lied to Members of Congress, and has forged ahead
with secret deals in spite of efforts and pleas by Congress to be
informed, if not involved.
In the last Congress, I was chairman of the Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. In
that capacity, I learned that in the time immediately leading up to the
bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, convicted Oklahoma
City bomber and murderer Terry Nichols had been in Cebu City in the
Philippines. His stay in Cebu City coincided with another visitor to
that city, al Qaeda's terrorist leader Ramsey Yousef. Interestingly,
both Nichols and Yousef used similar bombs and methods just 2 years
apart to blow up two American targets. Yousef was the mastermind of the
first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. Nichols was a
coconspirator in the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building in
1995.
By the way, I would like to acknowledge that today happens to be the
15-year anniversary of that first devastating attack on the World Trade
Center.
These individuals, one American and one Arab, were responsible for
planning two of the most lethal terrorist attacks on our countrymen in
our history. We are to believe that by coincidence they ended up in an
off-the-beaten-track city in the Southern Philippines? One doesn't have
to be a conspiracy nut to understand that this coincidence is certainly
worth looking into.
I started an official congressional investigation sanctioned by Henry
Hyde, then the chairman of the International Relations Committee, to
see whether Terry Nichols or his accomplice, Timothy McVeigh, had
foreign help in their murderous terrorist bombing of the Alfred Murrah
Building in Oklahoma City.
In light of the fact that Terry Nichols and Ramsey Yousef were both
in Cebu City at the same time prior to hauntingly similar terrorist
attacks, it was no stretch for a congressional investigative committee
to be looking into this matter. However, the Bush administration felt
quite differently. To those I had to deal with, it was ``case closed,
don't bother us.'' They had looked into the matter, and Congress should
simply and blindly accept their conclusion that there was no Nichols-
Yousef connection. ``Don't bother us.'' This was at times bureaucratic
laziness, and at other times it was clearly based on a disdain for
congressional investigations and authority.
During my investigation, I secured Ramsey Yousef's cell phone
records. The records were part of the phone calls that he made when he
was in that New York City area in the months just prior to the bombing
of the World Trade Center in 1993.
The phone records show that Ramsey Yousef made at least two phone
calls to a row house in Queens, New York.
[[Page H1066]]
That row house was occupied by the cousin of Terry Nichols' Filipina
wife. Let me repeat that. The terrorist bomber of the first World Trade
Center attack, the nephew of al Qaeda 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh
Mohammad, made phone calls to the same row house that was occupied by
Terry Nichols' cousins-in-law just 2 months before he exploded the bomb
in the garage of the World Trade Center 15 years ago. Another
coincidence?
I gave this information to the Department of Justice and since that
time have repeatedly sought their help in investigating this matter.
Time after time, my requests have gone unanswered or have just been
flatly denied.
I also asked the Department of Justice on numerous occasions to help
me investigate the name Samir Khahil. This name is on a list of
unindicted co-conspirators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,
again in connection with Ramsey Yousef.
It also is the name, by the way, of an Iraqi man in Oklahoma City who
at the time of the Oklahoma City bombing employed an Arab immigrant who
fits the description originally made by numerous witnesses as to John
Doe II.
This Oklahoma-based Iraqi lied, meaning the John Doe II look-alike,
lied to the investigators about his whereabouts at the time of the
Oklahoma City bombing, yet there was little if any follow-up on this
John Doe II look-alike. In fact, the FBI simply declared that John Doe
II never existed. The existence of John Doe II, let it be remembered,
was based on a sketch and sketches derived from witnesses on the scene
of the Oklahoma City bombing and the truck rental company in which that
bomb was placed on a truck from that truck rental company. Those
witnesses described a man who, as I say, looked very much like Samir
Khahil's employee.
Now, I have repeatedly asked the Department of Justice to tell me if
the Samir Khahil on the unindicted coconspirators list of the 1993
World Trade Center bombing is the same Samir Khahil who employed a man
originally identified as John Doe II, the bomber, the number two bomber
in the Oklahoma City bombing. The Justice Department's answer: ``It
would be too burdensome to find out if it was the same man.''
Further, we asked help in finding the Arab immigrant who looked like
John Doe II and the man who was employed by Samir Khahil. We traced him
to Boston, but we have had no support or cooperation in finding this
very possible terrorist, or at least terrorist suspect. He may well
have been working at Boston's Logan Airport on 9/11/01, the day that a
plane took off from that airport and was hijacked and crashed into the
World Trade Center. Another weird coincidence to the Oklahoma City
bombing. Another coincidence, yes.
You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to believe that these things
should be investigated. Instead, there has been no follow-through, no
interest. The case is closed, forget it, both in terms of Samir Khahil
and his Iraqi employer and employee; and both of these people, of
course, reside in the United States right now.
That is just a small taste of the deplorable lack of cooperation for
a legitimate congressional investigation. And it was no fluke. I didn't
just happen to snag some uncooperative Federal employee. No, this is
the level of non-cooperation Congress has learned to expect from this
administration.
Yes, Departments and agencies do have limited resources, and I
understand that. I used to work in the executive branch. So, yes, there
may be some better uses for and some good uses for those limited
resources and better uses for their time and investigators, rather than
just following up on leads that are provided by Members of Congress.
{time} 1715
You can hear someone explaining that. But the lack of cooperation
that we have had goes far beyond the fact that they are not going to
give their limited resources or even use some of their investigators to
track down what most of us would consider a very worthwhile lead,
especially considering that the terrorist that we are asking to look
into currently resides in the United States and may well have had
something to do with the bombing of the World Trade Center and the
bombing of the Oklahoma City building there.
But, again, a lot of my requests don't require a lot of time and
effort on the part of the executive branch, and I still have been
stonewalled. For the past year, for example, I have repeatedly
requested to interview the imprisoned terrorist Ramzi Yousef. He is in
Colorado and in strict lockup. He has been there for 10 years.
This would have taken no time and no resources from any executive
branch or Federal employee. None. This request is well within my
committee's jurisdiction as ranking member of the Investigative
Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
This request has been supported by the chairman of the Investigative
Subcommittee, the chairman of the full Foreign Affairs Committee, the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and the chairman of the
Intelligence Committee.
Such attention by Congress should be welcomed by this administration
and every administration. The legislative branch can help bring new
information to light and inform the public.
Nevertheless, the Department of Justice, consistent with its
treatment of congressional inquiries during the tenure of this
President, has dismissed this valid request. This request has been
treated with what can only be described as contempt and condescension.
The point is, unfortunately, that this rejectionist attitude is
typical. It is not that they don't have enough resources to help out,
to look into an easy matter to look into. It is just that they do not
want to cooperate with Congress, even when it's a Republican in
Congress, even when the Congress was controlled by a Republican
majority.
So, why would this administration obstruct congressional inquiries
such as this? Remember, Ramzi Yousef was the mastermind behind several
devastating terrorist attacks and plots against America. He led the
first murderous attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, as I say.
After fleeing to the Philippines, he and two other terrorists plotted
to kill thousands of Americans by blowing up 12 commercial airliners
over the Pacific at the same time. It was known as the Bojinka plot. It
was within 2 weeks of being executed when it was discovered and
thwarted by Philippine police.
Interestingly, the terrorist operation, the Bojinka plot, was to take
place about the same time as the Oklahoma City Federal building
bombing, perhaps on the same day. We don't know. Perhaps we should
know. Perhaps we should ask Ramzi Yousef about that.
Ramzi Yousef has been in Federal prison for over a decade. He is a
prisoner with a unique understanding of the al Qaeda terrorist
structure. He is the nephew of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of
the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center.
In 2006, when I was the chairman of the House Oversight
Investigations Subcommittee on the Foreign Affairs Committee, I was
investigating Yousef's movements and activities not only in the United
States but in the Philippines. I even traveled to the Philippines to
question authorities who had captured Yousef's roommate and
coconspirator in the Bojinka plot.
In spite of that fact and in spite of the fact that I was looking
into Yousef's terrorist activities and in spite of the fact that I had
obtained new information about Yousef's phone calls right here in the
United States and new information about his associates while he was in
the United States, the Department of Justice still dismisses the effort
and, more than that, they are obstructing a legitimate congressional
investigation, refusing to permit this elected Member of Congress, a
ranking member of a congressional investigating committee, to interview
a Federal prisoner. They refused access to Yousef claiming that there
is a ``ongoing investigation.''
This prisoner has been in jail for over 10 years. It is more likely
that what we have here is an ongoing coverup and not an ongoing
investigation. In fact, I have been told recently by a former member of
the Justice Department that they were told routinely simply to give
answers that there is an ongoing investigation even if no ongoing
investigation was underway, but simply using it as a phrase to dismiss
a request from Congress.
[[Page H1067]]
Well, this is outrageous, but it's typical of this administration.
This is a lot more than just a hurtful pride on my part of being turned
down.
This administration is setting a terrible precedent. What people have
to understand, when I am turned down like this, is when there is a
liberal Democrat in the White House, the President will have set that
Members of Congress can simply be dismissed, and that when they are
trying to do a congressional investigation need not be cooperated with,
in fact, can be obstructed. Is that the type of President that we want?
Is that acceptable? It shouldn't be acceptable to Democrats and it
shouldn't be acceptable to Republicans.
Doesn't Congress have a right to talk to Federal prisoners. Are these
the rules of engagement? Is it really the rules of engagement that we
want for our government that Members of Congress and the legislative
branch don't have a right to talk to Federal prisoners?
Well, that's apparently what the Bush administration is trying to
establish as the executive authority, as executive authority, the right
to deny congressional investigators access to Federal prisoners. The
danger of this should be easy to understand, both on my side of the
aisle, the Republican side, and the Democratic side of the aisle.
Again, the attitude, apparent in the treatment of this request, is
not an aberration or is it some sort of situation where this is not
really a representative way the President has acted with his authority.
No, I am afraid that's not the case.
This request was first made and denied when the Republicans
controlled the Congress and I was the chairman of the Investigative
Subcommittee.
Now Congress has a Democrat majority. In my position as ranking
member of the International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight
Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I have seen it
time and time again.
Our subcommittee chairman, Bill Delahunt from Massachusetts, read in
the newspaper that our President is negotiating a security agreement
with the Iraqi Prime Minister that will govern the future relationship
of our countries.
Now let me say that again. The chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee
on Foreign Affairs Committee is getting the information about a hugely
important foreign bilateral security agreement by reading the
newspaper. So, Chairman Delahunt conducted a hearing about the status
of such an agreement and invited the administration to send a witness
to testify before Congress.
How did the administration respond? They ignored the request. So the
hearing was held with a private panel of witnesses, and, yes, the
public has a right and an obligation to fully understand such
commitments that are being made by the President in our name.
In a democratic society, policy is made after having an open
dialogue. George Bush was elected President, not king.
In another attempt last month, our subcommittee held another hearing
on the Iraqi security agreement and, again, our panel invited and
pleaded with the administration to provide a witness. Their response?
Silence.
Our subcommittee held another, a third hearing on this topic. Again,
our subcommittee invited the administration to attend and explain to
Congress what kind of commitment our government has agreed to with the
government of Iraq. Even our full committee chairman wrote letters
asking for the administration to participate in the subcommittee
hearing. All the requests to the administration by our committee and by
the superiors in the full committee were ignored, except for one, and,
in one instance, where the contact was made, and I am sad to say that
once again this administration was less than honest on a matter of
national importance, Chairman Dela-
hunt's subcommittee was told by a White House staffer that the
administration's unwillingness to participate in hearings was because
``There is nothing to talk about because we haven't put pen to paper''
on security, because they haven't put the pen to paper on the security
agreement, supposedly.
Well, when confronted with the fact that the New York Times had
written a story saying that a 17-page agreement was being passed
around, this White House staffer backtracked and quibbled.
This is unacceptable, it's dishonest, and it's typical. It's like
saying there is an ongoing investigation; don't discuss anything
anymore with me. There is nothing going on here.
Now, there is something going on, just as, instead of talking and
trying to negotiate about what type of spokesman we could have at a
hearing, instead, what we get is an undermining of the congressional
right to oversee for the foreign policy decisions of this
administration.
This stonewalling prevailed until a few weeks ago, when Condoleezza
Rice, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a person and a leader who I
deeply admire, testified at a hearing of the full International
Relations Committee.
When asked about this issue, about witnesses not showing up from the
State Department and this administration to explain to us in public and
to discuss in public these very important agreements that are being
negotiated with Iraq, she pledged at that time that there would be
future witnesses dealing with this Iraqi agreement.
At least Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, feels secure
enough in this administration to do what's right and to talk directly
to Congress and to send her people over to talk to us.
Unfortunately, we had to go all the way to the Secretary of State
before we could get anybody in this administration to participate. Let
me note, I am a supporter of the President's Iraqi policies. I have
been a supporter since day one. I supported the surge, and I am not in
favor of some of the propositions made by my friends on the other side
of the aisle, which I consider would be a precipitous leaving of Iraq
and would cause damage, I believe.
But that's not the point. The point is, Congress has a legitimate
oversight responsibility and that the President of the United States
should be discussing in public so that the public could understand why
policy is being made rather than trying to secretly arrange a policy
agreement and then surprise everybody, you know, as a done deal. Sadly,
this administration's antipathy to the constitutional responsibilities
of the legislative branch of government does not stop and end with my
efforts and those of my subcommittee on investigations.
In October of last year, 22 of my colleagues and I wrote to the
Acting Attorney General, Peter Keisler, regarding the pending lie
detector test for former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger.
Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record, a copy of a letter concerning
making that request of Acting Attorney General Peter Keisler.
Continued next post.......................