House Resolution 895 Passed 227-183

The resolution, passed 227-183 on a largely party-line vote, did not specifically name the news organizations, but it was aimed at The New York Times and other news media that last week reported on a secret CIA-Treasury program to track millions of financial records in search of terrorists.

Most Democrats opposed the measure, protesting language in it that asserts that the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program was "rooted in sound legal authority" and that members of Congress had been appropriately briefed on the program.

While the Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal also carried stories on the program, Republicans singled out The New York Times.

The resolution was put forth earlier this week in response to the growing outrage over various news outlets that published details of the SWIFT program to track terror finances.

It's curious that the CNN report doesn't make mention that the actual text of the resolution does not include any reference to the New York Times, Washington Post, or any other media outlet.

Here's the roll call vote.

Eight GOPers voted against the resolution, while 17 Democrats voted for it.

I've got to believe that the reason that there wasn't greater support for the document was the provision defending the legality of the program, which helps explain why Democrats reacted angrily to the Majority's refusal to allow Democrats to offer an alternative. Democrats call this particular resolution a partisan document. Of course it is. As was the alternative that the Democrats were trying to put forth - by undermining the Administration's ability to fight the war on terror by not supporting a program that was clearly working to trace, investigate, and capture terrorists:

Democrats reacted angrily to the GOP majority's refusal to allow them to offer an alternative that would also have expressed concerns about the unauthorized leak of classified information but would have left out language defending the legality of the program.

"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," said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, author of the alternative.

Stop the ACLU also notes the resolution's passage and finds that the ACLU doesn't like this one bit.

Hot Air notes that the Senate is considering legislation to deal with the situation of leaks and classified information. He thinks that bloggers might be out of luck, based on S. 2831, Sec. 3(3) because it depends on what you consider what a journalist is:

(3) the term `journalist' means a person who, for financial gain or livelihood, is engaged in gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting, or publishing news or information as a salaried employee of or independent contractor for a newspaper, news journal, news agency, book publisher, press association, wire service, radio or television station, network, magazine, Internet news service, or other professional medium or agency which has as 1 of its regular functions the processing and researching of news or information intended for dissemination to the public.