[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 156 (Tuesday, October 16, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H11555-H11563]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 734 EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE
HOUSE REGARDING WITHHOLDING OF INFORMATION RELATING TO CORRUPTION IN
IRAQ
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 741 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 741
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 734)
expressing the sense of the House of Representatives
regarding the withholding of information relating to
corruption in Iraq. The resolution shall be considered as
read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion
or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform; and (2) one motion to recommit which may
not contain instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Vermont is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
General Leave
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent
that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend
remarks on House Resolution 741.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Vermont?
There was no objection.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 741 provides
for the consideration of House Resolution 734, expressing the sense of
the House of Representatives regarding the withholding of information
relating to rampant corruption in Iraq, corruption that is being used
with taxpayer money from our country. The rule provides for 1 hour of
general debate controlled by the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
Resolution 734 expresses the explicit sense of the House that the
State Department, our State Department, has abused its classification
authority by withholding from Congress and the American people
information about the extent of corruption in the Maliki government.
The resolution further condemns the State Department for retroactively
classifying documents that had been widely distributed previously as
unclassified and by directing State Department employees not to answer
questions in an open forum.
{time} 1030
Madam Speaker, we are in the fifth year of this war. We have lost
over 3,700 of our best young men and women. By the time this war is
over, many experts anticipate that the cost to the taxpayers will
exceed $1 trillion. General Ricardo Sanchez, a retired commander, last
week described the situation in Iraq as an absolute nightmare with no
end in sight.
This war started on the basis of bogus information: the threat of
weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. Hard questions that
should have been asked weren't asked. The war continued for years,
until November of 2006, with a Congress that was a rubber stamp for
whatever it was that the executive agencies wanted. Those days are
over.
[[Page H11556]]
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has been pursuing
relentlessly article I powers of this Congress to accept its
responsibility on behalf of the citizens of this country to ask
questions and get answers; yet the State Department is refusing to
allow relevant information to be disseminated to the members of that
committee.
Madam Speaker, let me go through the history. On October 4, 2007, the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing regarding the
extent of corruption within the Iraqi Government. David Walker, the
Comptroller General of the United States, and Stuart Bowen, the Special
Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, testified that entrenched
corruption in the Iraqi Government is actually fueling the insurgency,
undermining the chances of political reconciliation, which,
incidentally, was the whole point of the surge strategy of General
Petraeus, and that this corruption is, in fact, endangering our troops.
The former Commissioner of the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity,
Judge Radhi Hamza al-Radhi, testified that his own investigation
documented at least $18 billion in money stolen by corrupt officials.
He stated that Prime Minister Maliki personally intervened to prevent
the investigation from continuing.
Each witness that day provided evidence suggesting that corruption
within the Iraqi Government was tantamount to a second insurgency.
Specifically, David Walker testified that widespread corruption
undermines efforts to develop the government's capacity by robbing it
of needed resources, some of which are used to fund the insurgency
itself. Similarly, Mr. Bowen testified that corruption in Iraq stymies
the construction and maintenance of Iraq's infrastructure, deprives
people of goods and services, reduces confidence in public
institutions, and publicly aids insurgent groups reportedly funded by
graft from oil smuggling or embezzlement.
Judge al-Radhi testified that corruption in Iraq today is rampant
across the government, costing tens of billions of dollars, and has
infected virtually every agency and ministry, including some of the
most powerful in Iraq. He further stated that the Ministry of Oil is
effectively financing terrorism.
Madam Speaker, after hearing this testimony, which can only be
described as shocking, the Oversight Committee heard from Ambassador
Lawrence Butler, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State. Members of the
committee asked the obvious questions, very simple, very
straightforward: A, whether the Government of Iraq currently has the
political will or the capability to root out corruption within its
government; B, whether the Maliki government is working hard to improve
the corruption situation so that he can unite his country; C, whether
Prime Minister Maliki obstructed any anticorruption investigations in
Iraq to protect his political allies. Simple questions; no answers.
Ambassador Butler refused to answer any of these questions at the
hearing because on September 25, 2007, 7 business days before this
hearing, the State Department instructed officials not to answer
questions in open setting that called for, basically, answers. In the
jargon of the State Department, you couldn't answer a question that
called for ``broad statements or assessments which judge or
characterize the quality of Iraqi governance or the ability or
determination of the Iraqi Government to deal with corruption,
including allegations that investigations were thwarted or stifled for
political reasons.''
It is astonishing; $1 trillion, over 3,700 lives, a war that has no
end in sight, that was based on misinformation. Now, with billions of
dollars gone missing, no one is disputing this is as a result of
corruption, not just bad decisions. The State Department is directing
the people who have answers to deny answers to Congress and to the
American people.
Madam Speaker, the thrust of this resolution is very simple. It is
whether Congress has the right and the will to demand that it get
answers on behalf of the American people about this most catastrophic
foreign policy blunder.
In addition to preventing officials from answering questions about
the corruption in Iraq, the State Department retroactively classified
two reports written by the Office of Accountability and Transparency,
one of the two primary entities established by the State Department to
lead U.S. anticorruption efforts. So we turned the Office of
Transparency into the ``Office of Obscurity.''
These reports were initially marked ``sensitive but unclassified,''
and they suddenly, by fiat of the State Department, became
``confidential.'' The State Department also retroactively classified
portions of a report that was released and distributed at that October
4 hearing by Comptroller Walker. It addressed the commitment of the
Iraqi Government to enforce anticorruption laws.
As a member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, I and
my colleagues witnessed firsthand the State Department's absolute,
adamant, willful, and really intransigent refusal to testify about
Iraqi corruption. That is why the committee believes so strongly in the
support of this resolution.
The resolution states in very simple and plain language what every
American, I think, believes they are entitled to. One, it is essential
that Congress and the people of the United States know the extent of
corruption in Iraq. Two, it was wrong, not right, but wrong, to
reclassify documents that are embarrassing but do not meet the criteria
for classification. Three, it is an abuse of the classification process
to withhold from the American people broad assessments of the extent of
corruption within the Iraqi Government. Four, the directive issued by
the State Department on September 25, 2007, prohibiting its officials
from discussing the state of Iraqi corruption should be, indeed must
be, rescinded.
Madam Speaker, corruption within the Iraqi Government is
unacceptable. It undermines the efforts of this country; it undermines
the efforts of the honest people in Iraq to build a civil society. We
have no recourse but to demand from the State Department that they tell
us the facts and not withhold them because they are embarrassing and
don't serve what has been a self-serving and misguided policy since its
inception.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my very good friend, a new
member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch)
for his statement that was very thoughtful. But it actually in many
ways buttressed the argument that I was making in the Rules Committee
yesterday, that Chairman Waxman countered, that this resolution is
little more than an attempt to try and appease this sector of the House
of Representatives that wants this immediate withdrawal from Iraq,
represented by more than a couple of my colleagues who are here right
now.
I rise, Madam Speaker, in strong opposition to both this rule and the
underlying resolution. Once again the Democratic leadership has shut
down the normal, open legislative process in order to bring their
substantively flawed legislation to the floor, and once again they must
resort to a complete distortion of facts in order to advance their
agenda.
They have the formula down pretty well, Madam Speaker. First, you
pick an issue that no one could possibly oppose. In this case they have
bravely come forward and taken a stance against corruption. Well, it is
very impressive. Obviously we are all opposed to corruption.
Next, they slap together a resolution that ostensibly advances this
position, but, in reality, twists the facts such that the issue is
actually abandoned for purely political potshots; then shut down
regular order so that no dissenting voice can be heard.
Finally, when all due process and substantive deliberation has been
thwarted, attack those who expose their sloppy work by calling them
``pro-corruption,'' or ``anti-poor children,'' or whatever dark and
sinister trope we are exploiting this week.
This is a well-worn approach that has been, unfortunately, standard
operating procedure in this 110th Congress. What makes it so troubling
this time is that it came from a committee whose
[[Page H11557]]
chairman and ranking member have generally worked in a bipartisan way,
despite the Democratic leadership's very heavy-handed approach on so
many issues.
The ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), has been
very eager to work constructively with, Madam Speaker, our California
colleague (Mr. Waxman) who chairs the committee. They have worked
together on a number of issues. And it was the same way when our friend
from Fairfax, Virginia (Mr. Davis) was the chairman of the then
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, now the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, when Mr. Davis was the chairman and
Mr. Waxman was the ranking member.
Mr. Davis has not shied away from taking a very, very honest and fair
approach to oversight and speaking very frankly about the problems that
are exposed. He has always concerned himself only with the facts, not
the party affiliation of those who have come under scrutiny.
So why is it, Madam Speaker, why is it that the majority did not so
much as share the text of this resolution with the minority before
introducing it? Why did it not go through the regular committee process
to vet the language? What exactly do they fear by allowing just a
little bit of sunshine in their work?
Madam Speaker, when the Republicans on the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform finally got to have just a little peek at this
resolution, what they found were half-truths, distortions and blatant
omissions.
Our friend from Virginia (Mr. Davis) offered a substitute that would
modify the resolution by adding the critical information that the
majority had omitted and correcting what was mischaracterized. The
majority shamelessly but predictably shut out the amendment, in an
apparent attempt to suppress any effort to expose the glaring flaws to
their resolution.
Madam Speaker, all we have asked is to have a debate based on facts
rather than on phony narratives and biased misinformation. I have no
doubt that their side will continue this charade of a debate and
pretend that this resolution is simply about exposing corruption and
those who try to cover it up.
Madam Speaker, they can have their charade, but this side is going to
actually talk about facts today, something that we are proud to
regularly do, and, unfortunately, doesn't emerge too often from the
other side of the aisle.
We will start with the issue of corruption in the Iraqi Government.
It is a huge problem. It is a huge problem, corruption in the Iraqi
Government, Madam Speaker. We all recognize that. The Iraqis recognize
that. Today in The Washington Post a representative from the State
Department made it very clear that the issue of corruption within the
Iraqi Government is a serious one. The entire world recognizes the fact
that there is corruption within the Iraqi Government.
Through a number of U.S. departments and agencies, including the
State Department, we are funding a wide range of programs to find, root
out and prevent corruption; to build the capacity of the Iraqi
Government to fight corruption within its own ranks, which is what our
goal is, making sure we fight corruption. We want to strengthen the
democratic institutions that must be strong, transparent and enduring,
so that the rule of law can prevail, and those who break the law will,
in fact, be brought to justice.
That is what our goal is, Madam Speaker, and that is something that I
believe we could address in a bipartisan way if Mr. Waxman and Mr.
Davis had, in fact, had the chance to come together. Mr. Davis very
much wanted to, but apparently he was rebuffed.
This is the primary goal of our policy, ensuring that we take on and
root out and eliminate corruption within the Iraqi Government. And our
efforts would be highlighted in this resolution, if its authors had not
systematically struck the positive comments made by the very experts
quoted in their text.
{time} 1045
For example, they quote Judge Radhi Hamza al-Radhi as saying, and I
quote, Madam Speaker, ``Corruption in Iraq today is rampant and has
infected virtually every agency and ministry.'' That is what is in the
resolution, Madam Speaker. They unfortunately in this resolution cut
out the rest of the quote.
Judge Radhi went on to tell the committee, and I quote, Madam
Speaker, ``The Iraqi people would hope that you continue your support
to them, otherwise they will be suppressed by the neighboring
countries.'' He went on to say, ``I believe if you help the Iraqi
people to be managed and governed by an honest government, I believe
that the problem will be over.'' Now that's the full quote from Judge
Radhi Hamza al-Radhi.
To this key point, the very people that came before the committee to
testify on Iraq's corruption problem also highlighted our attempts to
combat it; and they begged us, they begged us, Madam Speaker, not to
abandon them. A number of other key quotes were cut short in the
resolution resulting in a skewed view of testimony.
They suppressed testimony from the Inspector General for Iraq
Reconstruction citing that the Iraq Government fully recognizes its
corruption problem. They cut out the Comptroller General's testimony
that this is an internal Iraqi problem which does not involve U.S.
funds, and that the Iraqis face enormous challenges following decades
of a dictatorship where, and I quote, ``corruption was woven into the
very fabric of governing.''
It is all there in black and white in the alternative that Mr. Davis
presented to us up in the Rules Committee.
Of course, that full litany of the facts will never come to a vote in
this House because of a decision that the majority leadership has made.
They would rather cherry-pick quotes and give a distorted account of
the facts.
Madam Speaker, the resolution's second major premise, which also
suffers from being disassociated with the facts, is that the State
Department has tried to cover up Iraqi corruption and has withheld
pertinent information from Congress. Again, the majority can continue
their pseudo-debate if they would like; but, Madam Speaker, on this
side of the aisle, we are just going to stick to the facts. And the
fact is that a portion of an unfinished, unvetted document was
inadvertently leaked. When the report was ultimately finalized,
portions were deemed classified in the interest of protecting sources
whose lives would be threatened for their anticorruption efforts and to
protect private conversations stemming from diplomatic efforts.
We can accuse the State Department of sloppiness because of the leak;
we can play Monday morning quarterback and say that they shouldn't have
bothered to classify information no matter how sensitive after it was
inadvertently leaked. But to accuse them of trying to cover up
information is a blatant mischaracterization of the facts.
Furthermore, Chairman Waxman has declined to release the transcripts
of interviews with State and Justice Departments officials on the very
issues raised in this resolution. State has also offered classified
briefings to answer any and all questions that can't be addressed in an
open setting. Now, Madam Speaker, according to the State Department,
Chairman Waxman has declined that offer. It would appear that the
authors of this resolution may not actually be interested in gathering
this information.
In fact, it is ironic that a resolution accusing government officials
of withholding information would cherry-pick quotes from testimony and
suppress an amendment that tells the whole story. And it is ironic that
its authors make these accusations while refusing to release the
transcripts of its own proceedings and deny the opportunity for a full
classified briefing. If they were truly interested in combating
corruption or the full disclosure of information, they would have gone
through regular order that developed legislation within the context of
a full debate that includes the facts in the situation.
I would ask them to take the issue of corruption more seriously,
Madam Speaker. This is an issue that has plagued our own government. We
have wrestled for years over ethics reform, and we still haven't got it
right. We are trying right now to bring to the floor earmark reform. We
have a discharge petition in the well and we have encouraged our
colleagues to sign that to deal with what clearly has been a bipartisan
issue. It is an issue that has been wrought with corruption in the
[[Page H11558]]
past. We are trying very hard to address that. Unfortunately, the
majority leadership refuses to allow us to bring to the floor earmark
reform that would simply bring us to the standard that we passed in the
last Congress.
Now, Madam Speaker, as we look around the world at democracies old
and new, we see that no one has been able to completely root out the
problem of corruption. I have the great privilege to work with my
colleague, David Price, and 18 other of our Members as part of the
House Democracy Assistance Commission. Our commission works directly
with legislatures in developing democracies all around the world, and
corruption tops the list of challenges every single time.
In every one of the 12 member countries that we have within the House
Democracy Assistance Commission, this problem of corruption comes to
the forefront. Endemic corruption threatens the very survival of real
democracy, and that is why we are tackling the problem across the
globe; and, Madam Speaker, Iraq is no exception.
Unfortunately, rather than furthering our efforts, the Democratic
majority would rather sit in the cheap seats taking shots at the Iraqi
Government awash in righteous indignation over trumped-up charges of a
coverup. I would call on them instead to offer a meaningful bill that
addresses the very serious issue of corruption and take it up under
regular order. I would call on them, Madam Speaker, to allow their work
to stand before the rigors of scrutiny and deliberation.
Madam Speaker, I am quite confident that we could all come together
to work on a universally supported issue of combating corruption. As I
said, we have these great models of Henry Waxman and Tom Davis who
traditionally in a bipartisan way have worked together. I believe we
could do that again. But, unfortunately, Mr. Davis was completely
rebuffed when this resolution was introduced, as our colleague from
Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings) said, in the Rules Committee last
night, was introduced last Friday with no markup whatsoever, and then
we brought it up last night in the Rules Committee.
Let's work to have a constructive, meaningful debate on this issue
based on facts that actually attempt to do something grander than the
political posturing that we are seeing with this resolution.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, before I yield to my friend from
Massachusetts, I would like to just comment on a few of the
observations and statements made by my friend from California.
First of all, I agree with him that Chairman Waxman and Ranking
Member Davis have worked cooperatively and extremely well. And, in
fact, there was an effort to maintain that tradition here when Chairman
Waxman last Wednesday delivered a copy of the text of this resolution
to the minority with specific heads-up that this resolution was going
to be introduced on Friday and with the request that comments or edits
be provided in a timely way so that the introduction could occur on
that day.
The edits were not presented until Monday, just before the Rules
Committee meeting. So the good news here is that that cooperative
approach continued. Mr. Waxman, in his usual gentlemanly and collegial
way, made apparent what his intentions were, provided the language and
opportunity for response, and it was not forthcoming. So that's the
story.
The gentleman from California will have an opportunity to respond on
his own time, so I won't yield at this time.
Secondly, the premise that on a matter of enormous public importance
where it is our lives, it is our money that is imperiled, that is being
wasted, that Members of Congress could sacrifice their capacity to be a
representative of the people that we represent by accepting a
classified briefing on something that is profoundly public in nature is
flat out rejected by the committee and by most Members of this
Congress.
When we are asked to go get a private briefing up in the Intelligence
SCIF with a requirement that we sign an oath that we can't reveal
anything that we learned, it means that the State Department has
succeeded in its goal of keeping secret information that should be made
public. So that is not simply an option that makes any sense if we are
going to move ahead.
Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I regret that the intransigence and
stonewalling by the Bush administration of Congress' oversight
responsibilities have made this legislation necessary.
H. Res. 734 rightfully expresses the sense of the House that the
Department of State has abused its classification authority by
withholding from Congress and the American people information about the
extent of corruption in the Iraqi Government. This resolution
criticizes the State Department for retroactively classifying public
documents that have previously been widely distributed as unclassified.
It also calls upon the State Department to rescind its directive that
orders officials not to answer questions in an open committee hearing
that might characterize the situation of corruption in the Iraqi
Government.
What is the background on this, Madam Speaker? On October 4, the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing on
corruption in Iraq. Mr. Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for
Iraq, and Mr. David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United
States with the Government Accountability Office, testified that
entrenched corruption in the Iraqi Government is fueling the
insurgency, undermining the chances of political reconciliation and
endangering our troops. Judge Radhi Hamza al-Radhi, the former head of
Iraq's own Commission on Public Integrity, stated that his work
documented $18 billion stolen by corrupt officials. He also testified
that Prime Minister Maliki personally intervened to block further
investigations and prosecutions of his relatives and political allies
from going forward.
Concern about endemic corruption in the Iraqi Government should be of
great concern to every single Member of this House. It raises a
fundamental question: Is the Iraq Government, under the leadership of
Prime Minister Maliki, too corrupt to succeed?
It should definitely concern the White House and the State
Department. So how did the Bush administration respond?
The State Department took the extraordinary step of retroactively
classifying corruption reports by its own officials, and even portions
of a GAO report already released by Mr. Walker.
State Department witnesses appearing before the committee refused to
answer even the most basic questions about corruption in Iraq in open
session.
So imagine my surprise when I opened this morning's Washington Post
to find that the State Department told the press yesterday that
official corruption in Iraq is ``real, endemic and pernicious,'' and
remains a major challenge to building a functioning, stable democracy.
Now that wasn't in a classified setting; it was on a conference call
with reporters. So it is okay to make such statements to the press but
not to a congressional committee?
Madam Speaker, we are not talking about state secrets on how to carry
out attacks against al Qaeda in Iraq. We are talking about corruption.
Government corruption. There is no reason for stonewalling Congress,
especially when the topic is discussed freely with reporters in a
conference call.
Quite simply, Madam Speaker, the Bush administration has abused the
classification system and demonstrated its contempt of congressional
oversight and accountability. More than 3,800 of our troops have been
killed in Iraq and more than 28,000 wounded. Let me repeat that. More
than 3,800 of our troops have been killed in Iraq and more than 28,000
wounded.
What kind of an Iraqi Government are they fighting for? I think their
families and their military comrades deserve to know. President Bush is
asking Congress to give him another $150 billion for the war. I think
Congress and the American people deserve to know the extent of
corruption within the Iraqi Government and how that might affect our
chances of success in Iraq.
[[Page H11559]]
Madam Speaker, the facts about corruption may be embarrassing for the
Iraqi Government, but they do not meet the test for secret
classification.
{time} 1100
Every newspaper in America has written stories on corruption in Iraq.
Classifying previously released public documents, silencing public
officials so that Congress and the American people are unable to get a
complete picture, the good and the bad, about corruption in Iraq serve
no legitimate purpose.
Any Member, Madam Speaker, who stands up on the House floor and says
they're against corruption in Iraq has to vote for this measure.
The fact is that our occupation of Iraq is, occupation of Iraq is now
in its fifth year. For four of those years, when Republicans were in
control of Congress, they did nothing and said nothing about
corruption. They were silent, while hundreds of billions of dollars
were funneled to a government who I wouldn't trust to tell me the
correct time.
Madam Speaker, talk is cheap, and if you're against corruption, then
you should vote for this resolution. The problem is that for too long
in this Congress there have been some who have been apologists for bad
behavior. They have looked the other way while they have known that
corruption in the Iraqi Government has been an increasing problem, not
a decreasing problem.
So I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that if,
in fact, you want to change the behavior of the Iraqi Government, if
you want to stop the silence and the inaction that characterized your
control of this Congress when it came to the issue of corruption in
Iraq, then you need to vote for this resolution. The administration's
actions need to be denounced and rescinded.
I would urge my colleagues to stand up finally and belatedly and do
the right thing and support H. Res. 734.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I look forward to yielding to my friend from Worcester if he would
like to engage in a colloquy with me on this issue.
Now, my friend has basically stood here basically buttressing the
entire argument I made in my opening statement. Who is it that's a
proponent of corruption? My friend has argued, Madam Speaker, that if
you are opposed to corruption, you have no choice but to support this
resolution.
Here's the thing that concerns me greatly, and I'd be happy to yield
to my friend if he would like to challenge me on this at all. Here's
the thing that troubles me greatly, Madam Speaker.
As we stand here at this moment, we regularly have Members of the
other side of the aisle accusing this administration of not coming
forward with all the facts. And what is it that this resolution does?
This resolution actually ignores the facts, and I will go through again
the quotes from Judge Radhi Hamza al-Radhi who, in fact, said time and
time again that the issue of our support for the effort of rooting out
corruption in Iraq is one that must continue, and unfortunately, all
we're doing is pointing a finger of blame here.
I would say to my friend that, as we look at this issue, why not
seize the opportunity that the State Department has offered to make
sure that you can have a full classified briefing and then make the
determination as to whether or not something should or should not be
classified? That's the way it should be handled, rather than this broad
brush, sweeping approach saying that if you, Madam Speaker, are somehow
opposed to corruption you have no choice but to support this
resolution.
Of course we support the effort to ensure that we don't have
corruption, but to see this ploy trying to paint people in a corner
with just a little bit of the facts is, I think, a great disservice to
our quest to root out corruption. And I believe very strongly, Madam
Speaker, that it is essential for us, on behalf of the American people
and on behalf of the model that we are trying to provide that
corruption is bad, to make sure that this resolution provides all of
the facts as we move forward.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank the former chairman of the Rules
Committee for yielding.
I would just say for 4 years this Congress and this administration
has been indifferent to the corruption in Iraq, and as a result, we
bear some responsibility for the mess that's there now, and this
resolution says we need to change course.
Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, and I'd like my friend to continue
because I'll yield to him in a moment, but for him to claim over the
last 4 years that this administration has been indifferent to the
problem of corruption is an outrage because the problem of corruption
is something that has existed for years.
This administration and this Congress have been dedicated to rooting
out corruption in Iraq. We've worked in a bipartisan way on it, and
it's very tragic and I think a disservice to those who want to address
the issue of corruption that we somehow are told that we only accept
this resolution, that does not engage in providing all of the facts,
that we somehow are tolerant of or supportive of a policy of
corruption.
I'm happy to further yield.
Mr. McGOVERN. I would say to the gentleman, if during the last 4
years that this Congress and this administration did anything to fight
corruption in Iraq in a meaningful way as a statement, maybe it's part
of a classified briefing we need to have.
Mr. DREIER. He's making the exact same argument here. He's making the
exact same argument that nothing has been done.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would like to remind Members that
they must maintain proper order in yielding and reclaiming time.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would inquire of the Chair, did I
correctly reclaim my time? Did I make a mistake here, I would inquire
of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair's admonition was to all Members.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, what I would like to do is to share with
our colleagues some of the things that have been done over the past 4
years.
My friend mentions the fact that this administration has turned their
back on the issue of corruption in Iraq. Let me just state, there has
been technical training to build capacity, judicial reform. The
National Endowment for Democracy has provided grants. There are
international programs involved. The Iraq Reconstruction Rehabilitation
Fund has increased the capacity of the Commission on Public Integrity
by training, mentoring and providing equipment for the Commission on
Public Integrity investigators, and aiding in corruption prevention
programs, implementing financial management systems that remove some of
the opaqueness that enables misuse of public funds to occur.
The U.S. prosecutors who advise and mentor the CCCI judges in all
manner of serious cases, including anticorruption cases, have received
support over the past 4 years, Madam Speaker. Judicial reforms have
taken place, funded with $9 million through the Department of Justice
in Iraq in fiscal 2006 on anticorruption activities, and this goes on
and on.
I will include in the Record the items that have been done over the
past 4 years by this administration to combat the issue of corruption
in Iraq, including, as I said, grants from the National Endowment for
Democracy, dealing with human rights issues, and a wide range of other
entities and a litany of some of the items that have been done.
So it is a gross mischaracterization, Madam Speaker, to argue that
the administration has turned their back on the issue of corruption in
Iraq.
Anti-Corruption Programs in Iraq Provided by the U.S. State Department
State/Embassy Baghdad support for anti-corruption efforts
Technical training: build capacity.
Judicial reform.
NED Grantees.
International Programs.
Technical training: build capacity
IRRF (Iraq Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Fund) has
increased the capacity of the Commission on Public Integrity,
CPI, by training, mentoring, and providing equipment for CPI
investigators and aiding in corruption prevention programs
(implementing financial management systems that remove
[[Page H11560]]
some of the opaqueness that enables misuse of public funds to
occur).
INL funds DOJ Resident Legal Advisors--U.S. prosecutors who
advise and mentor CCCI judges in all manner of serious cases,
including anti-corruption cases.
Judicial reforms
IRRF funded $9 million through DOJ in Iraq in FY06 on anti-
corruption activities.
Six advisors work with the Embassy's Office of
Accountability and Transparency, OAT, to provide support to
the CPI and other Iraqi anti-corruption entities.
NED Grantees working on anti-corruption and transparency
Iraqi Human Rights Watch Society is working to build and
train a core group of activists on combating corruption.
Badlisy Cultural Center is working to raise awareness among
youth about anti-corruption and transparency in Sulaimaniya
province and to encourage cooperation between Iraqi NGOs in
the North and their counterparts in the South.
To expand its democracy training program in Al-Muthan,
Dhiqar, and Alqadisiya, the Rafidain Civic Education
Institute will train six trainers to conduct 36 workshops
targeting students and NGO activists to provide them with the
skills to raise awareness of the need to combat corruption.
International Programs
On September 26, 2007, the State Department signed a
$1,621,700 grant agreement with the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, OECD. The OECD has already
started working with the Government of Iraq (GOI) to develop
and implement a framework more conducive to investment and
economic development.
What has the Embassy done recently?
Anti-corruption efforts are a part of everything we do in
Iraq: a multiagency, multi-country approach, at the local,
provincial, and national levels. From 2004 to 2006, we
focused on building and heavily investing in anticorruption
strategies and institutions. In 2007, we created OAT (the
Office of Accountability and Transparency) to help coordinate
those activities and identify gaps. We increased staff
dedicated to anti-corruption activities (recruited qualified
people and expanded our focus to include the BSA and IGs). We
formed the Iraqi inter-agency anti-corruption team, a multi-
agency, multi-country team.
PRTS: provincial success on budget/acquisition
accountability processing.
Well over 50 USG employees work on some aspect of anti-
corruption activities in Iraq.
Embassy response to corruption controversy
The Embassy continues to work with the Iraqi Government to
combat public corruption and improve transparency and
accountability.
Support and training contracts are on hold pending clarity
of succession at CPI.
The 11 Iraqi CPI investigators who went to the U.S. for
training along with Radhi in mid-August have returned to Iraq
and, according to Embassy reports, are eager and ready to
investigate corruption, at great personal risk.
While corruption in Iraq is a serious problem and we are
helping Iraqis combat it, this issue does not affect U.S.
programs. There is a distinction between GOI activities and
USG efforts in Iraq, and the USG has strict checks in place
to help combat corruption.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman
from California if he has any remaining speakers. I'm the last speaker
on this side. So I reserve my time until the gentleman has closed for
his side and yielded back his time.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is very, very unfortunate that we are here trying to tackle the
issue of corruption in Iraq and we are failing to look at the facts.
The distinguished former chairman of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, our friend from Fairfax, Virginia (Mr. Davis) has
worked long and hard in a bipartisan way on the constitutionally
mandated responsibility of legislative oversight of the executive
branch. It's an issue which he takes very seriously.
He represents northern Virginia. He represents a lot of people who
work in the executive branch, a lot of people who work in the
legislative branch as well. He's an expert on these issues and he's
been proud to work in past Congresses and in this Congress in a
bipartisan way.
He's done that with my good friend and California colleague with whom
we share representing the Los Angeles area (Mr. Waxman), the
distinguished Chair of the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform. And traditionally, we've seen these two, while they've
obviously had a different perspective on issues, we've seen their
arguments propounded very, very thoughtfully on a regular basis, but
they have been able to join on a wide range of issues.
And here we have Mr. Davis, who did have his staff last Wednesday get
a copy of this resolution, but Madam Speaker, as you recall we had the
funeral of our colleague Mrs. Davis, and we were not in on Thursday and
on Friday we were not in session. And the members of the staff on the
minority side were told on Wednesday that they were not to share this
information, to wait until it was introduced on Friday.
Madam Speaker, it was introduced on Friday. We had not been in
session for 2 days then, Thursday or Friday, and then all of a sudden
this is brought up in the Rules Committee, no markup held whatsoever,
no attempt to even get the briefing from the State Department. We've
been told by the State Department that the chairman of the committee
turned down the offer to have this briefing.
And so what can we conclude, Madam Speaker, other than the fact that
there is gross politicization of this issue? Who is opposed to tackling
the issue of corruption? I mean, it's motherhood and apple pie, and yet
we somehow, because we want to get all the facts on the table, because
we want to have an opportunity for a free-flowing debate, because we
want the very respected ranking minority member to have a chance to
have his substitute voted on in this House, we are somehow being told
we are pro-corruption, we want to be part of a coverup. It is
absolutely outrageous, Madam Speaker. It's a disservice to Democrats
and Republicans of this institution to have this kind of treatment.
Madam Speaker, I have some closing remarks that I'd like to make, but
we've just been joined by our very thoughtful colleague from
Bridgeport, Connecticut, who is a hardworking member of the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform.
Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time we have
remaining on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 6\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Vermont has 12\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. DREIER. And the gentleman from Vermont has no further speakers;
is that correct, Madam Speaker?
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. That's correct.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 5 minutes
to my friend from Bridgeport (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Today, we're here to consider a resolution about corruption in Iraq.
Mr. Davis attempted to present an alternative to the resolution, but it
was blocked by my Democratic colleagues. The Democratic version
provides a one-sided view about corruption in Iraq and Department of
State efforts to counter corruption. The other version by Mr. Davis
accepted the Democratic points but also presented the rest of the
story. Whatever happened to compromise and bipartisanship?
It never ceases to amaze me what my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle will do to get votes and keep the support of their base. We
all know the Democratic base wants the United States to get out of
Iraq; however, the Democrats have not been able to prevent President
Bush from carrying out his new and winning strategy in Iraq, so they
continue to try to find other means to undermine our efforts to
stabilize Iraq.
For example, they've held hearings on Blackwater, the contractor
accused of shooting into crowds of civilians. Although this oversight
is justified and needed, my colleagues are using the results of this
hearing as a tool to drive a wedge between the American people and the
administration's efforts to stabilize Iraq.
Another example is the resolution condemning the Armenian genocide.
The Democrats know full well, if this resolution passes the House,
Turkey will take retaliatory steps against the United States. These
steps could undermine our efforts in Iraq and our troop presence
throughout the Middle East. In fact, Turkey has already begun the
process and called their U.S. ambassador back to Turkey for
consultation.
And now we have a resolution about corruption in Iraq. What a
revelation! Yes, there is corruption in Middle Eastern countries. Yes,
there has been corruption in Iraq. And yes, there continues to be
corruption in a
[[Page H11561]]
postauthoritarian regime. The United States did not bring corruption to
this country, nor will it end when we leave. Saddam Hussein and his
bureaucratic henchmen were major contributors to that continued
corruption. Just read the reports about the Oil-for-Food Program our
committee conducted.
Is the Department of State remiss in their efforts to fight
corruption in Iraq? They may well be. But countering long-standing
corruption is not easy and will take some time. I believe we in the
United States face some of the same problems.
I'm not asking for my Democratic colleagues to stop oversight
ferreting out waste, fraud and abuse. What I am asking is for Democrats
and Republicans to come together and work through the issue of Iraq and
not use it as a wedge preventing the United States from assisting the
Iraqis to establish a stable democratic regime that will not export
terrorism.
Yes, there are those who believe Iraq is a lost cause. Senator Reid
and Nancy Pelosi both believe we should withdraw our troops right away.
But there are others who understand the international security
consequences of leaving Iraq precipitously and believe we should
withdraw our presence in a safe and responsible manner.
Therefore, I ask those who truly understand the consequences of
undermining our efforts in Iraq to understand what my Democratic
colleagues are doing. Sadly they are trying to drive a wedge between
the American public and the administration efforts to be successful in
Iraq. Please understand that attempts to undermine our efforts in Iraq
undermine our troops and U.S. interests all over the globe.
{time} 1115
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time
is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The gentleman from
California has 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I am happy to see the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules
has joined us here on the floor, and I have to say, Madam Speaker, that
I am going to encourage our colleagues to defeat the previous question
on this rule. Why? Because this resolution is all about tackling the
issue of corruption.
One of the things that we tragically learned is there has been
corruption not only in Iraq, and we all, including the State
Department, recognize there has been serious corruption in Iraq. But
there has been corruption right in this body as well. It has been
widely heralded; it is bipartisan. We have had problems on both sides
of the aisle.
We want to take on this issue of corruption. And there was a promise
made last fall that we would in fact see a great new day when it came
to the issue of earmark reform. I was very proud, Madam Speaker, that
last October we were able to pass legislation that provided full
transparency, disclosure, and accountability on all earmarks,
appropriations, authorization, and tax bills.
Now, we were told that that measure that passed last year, Madam
Speaker, was in fact a sham. And, Madam Speaker, I have to tell you
that we have passed earmark reform in this Congress, but unfortunately
it doesn't go nearly as far as the bill that we passed in the 109th did
on the issue of transparency, accountability, and disclosure. Why? The
disclosure we have today only deals with the issue of appropriations.
It does not, as we did in the last Congress, have full transparency,
disclosure, and accountability on authorization and tax bills. Meaning,
Madam Speaker, that the structure that we have now, unfortunately,
creates the potential for corruption right here in this body.
That is why, since we have in this resolution an attempt to take on
the issue of corruption in Iraq, the vote on the previous question that
we are going to be offering to defeat the previous question to make in
order the resolution, that we have as a discharge petition that our
Republican leader (Mr. Boehner) has offered in the well of the House.
We hope colleagues will sign because that hasn't come forward. But what
we are trying to do with the defeat of the previous question is to make
in order that measure so that we can take on the issue of corruption in
this institution.
So, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question so that we are able to make in order that measure.
I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record just prior to the
vote on the previous question the text of the amendment and extraneous
material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DREIER. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, our Chair has arrived and has
requested 30 seconds. Notwithstanding my previous statement that I was
the last speaker, I am inquiring if my friend from California has any
objection.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am always very, very thrilled to have a
chance to hear from the distinguished Chair of our Rules Committee, and
I would like to reclaim the balance of my time if I might.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
California reclaims his time.
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I simply want to say that I did hear my
colleague say how concerned we all were about corruption and how much
we really wanted to do about it. Unfortunately, for the past 3 years
nothing on your side was done about it. It was never looked into,
despite the fact that our side brought it up numerous times, trying to
get bills to the floor and trying to discuss what was going on in Iraq
in terms of the loss of taxpayer money. I regret that that has not been
acknowledged. This is the first time that we have literally brought up
the actual corruption in the Iraq Government.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to respond to the very distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules
and say that the issue of corruption is one which we have taken on both
in Iraq and in this Congress with great enthusiasm. And I would say to
my friend that if she believes that somehow this nonbinding resolution,
which does absolutely nothing, is going to somehow allow us to tackle
the issue of corruption in Iraq with greater enthusiasm, that is
preposterous, absolutely preposterous, Madam Speaker.
What we need to do is we need to have a fair, free-flowing debate
that allows us to bring all of the facts forward. And that is what we
have been attempting to do here; and, unfortunately, it just is not
happening. Why? Because as my friend from Connecticut, a very
thoughtful Member (Mr. Shays) has said, we are observing political
posturing here, and I think it is a very sad day.
Let's take on the issue of corruption in this institution by
defeating the previous question so we can bring forward real meaningful
earmark reform, something that the new majority promised but not only
has failed to deliver on but failed completely in getting us to even
the standard we had in the last Congress. So vote ``no'' on the
previous question and ``no'' on the rule.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. The distinguished Chair has requested an
additional 30 seconds, and I would yield 30 seconds to my colleague.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I simply want to say that the purpose of this
resolution is to call attention to the fact that the State Department
of the United States of America has refused to respond to subpoenas
from a congressional committee. And if we are going to have a free flow
of discussion on Iraq and corruption, as my colleague suggested, then
we need to have the State Department give us the documents that we need
to be able to do so. That is the purpose for this resolution, and I
urge a ``yes'' vote on all sides from everyone who really wants this
full discussion.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, in this 30 seconds what I am going to say
is we witnessed something that is virtually unprecedented here. The
manager of the rule made it clear that he was the
[[Page H11562]]
last speaker and there was no one else. Now, I recognized the first
time that I was enthused about hearing from the distinguished Chair of
the Committee on Rules. And I exhausted the time allotted to us for our
debate on the minority's side, and this is what we have gotten, a
repetition of the same thing.
The issue of corruption, Madam Speaker, is something that we all want
to take on; we want to take on with all of the facts before us. Our
colleagues need to get the classified briefing and this information. I
am going to continue to urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and
the rule.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished Chair
for joining us. I thank my friend from California for cooperating in
this debate and giving his usual vigorous presentation of his side's
point of view. I want to address a couple of things that came up.
One, my friend from California said basically that this is a
resolution attempting to appease the Out of Iraq Caucus. And he used
the word ``appease.''
It is not about that. But I will confess that I am a person who is
strongly opposed to this war, believe it was the wrong decision, it was
based on false information, and it is the single most terrible foreign
policy blunder that our country has embarked upon. But this resolution
has nothing to do with that profound question.
What this is about is not who favors corruption. Nobody favors
corruption. But it is about who tolerates secrecy. If we tolerate
secrecy while we criticize corruption, don't we, in fact, condone the
corruption to which we avert our eyes?
How will we talk about the facts? How can we talk about the facts
which my distinguished colleague from California says he wants to talk
about when the State Department denies us the facts?
If we are going to root out corruption in Iraq, don't we have to
destroy the wall of self-serving State Department secrecy here in our
own government?
It has been said on the other side that corruption is everywhere.
Human nature. No argument there. But if corruption exists elsewhere and
it is their money and their future, that is one thing. If corruption
exists in Iraq with our hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and
our soldiers and their lives, then it is our problem. And we not only
have a right, we have a responsibility, Madam Speaker, to do every
single thing we can to get to the bottom of it and to stop it.
It was also said that in Iraq it is just another government with some
corruption. We owe it not just to our own citizens, our own soldiers;
we owe it to our allies and our friends in Iraq to do everything we can
to help those good people who are there standing up to fight corruption
back here. They need our help.
Let me just tell you some of the testimony that Judge Radhi presented
to us about the incredible peril that folks in Iraq are subjected to
when they try to fight for an honest government. Judge Radhi held that
position for 3 years, until he finally resigned amid repeated death
threats to himself, his family, and his staff.
He testified in our committee that 31 of his employees had been
killed, not injured, killed, as well as at least 12 of their family
members. Judge Radhi's home was attacked by rockets, by a sniper's
bullet barely missing him as he stood outside his office. He testified
about how one staff member was gunned down with a 7-month pregnant
wife. He testified about how the father of a security chief was
kidnapped and then literally found hung on a meat hook. He testified
about how another staff member's father was killed; and when his dead
body was found, a power drill had been used to drill his body with
holes.
These are officials who are fighting corruption in Iraq, and they are
being gunned down, they are being assassinated, they are being
tortured; and we are supposed to be standing idly by.
When we ask questions of the State Department what is going on and
they take a document that yesterday was unclassified and today make it
classified, that is not acceptable. The State Department anticorruption
efforts have been a mess. And basically what the State Department is
doing is just enough so that they can claim they are trying to do
something about corruption; but basically it is status quo, as it has
been since the day this war began.
We have to make a decision as Members of Congress that is very
simple: we are real, we are serious, or we aren't. And it is about
tolerating secrecy, depriving us and the American people of information
that we are entitled to, that we must have in order to do our job; or
it is turning a blind eye to those folks in Iraq who are standing up on
our side and finding their bodies of loved ones drilled with holes and
hung on meat hooks. It is not acceptable. The American people know it
is not acceptable.
We may have an administration that disregarded the vote of the
American people in November when they said they wanted a new direction
in Iraq. We may have an administration that disregarded the
recommendations of an eminent bipartisan group in the Iraq Study
Commission. And we may have an administration that has dismissed and
disregarded votes in this House and the Senate, making it clear that we
want a new direction even as we struggle to find what that is. But we
cannot, any of us on either side of the aisle, accept being an
enfeebled Congress that isn't entitled to get the information that our
Congress needs to do its job. It is that simple.
And that is what this resolution is about. That is what the Oversight
and Government Reform Committee is about. That is what Chairman Waxman
is standing up to assert and defend, and that is our constitutional
responsibility. Not just prerogative, but constitutional responsibility
to do what is required to defend our Constitution, to protect our
soldiers, to stand up for our taxpayers, and to restore democratic
tradition in this country.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Dreier is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 741 Offered by Mr. Dreier of California
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the
following:
That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the
House shall, without intervention of any point of order,
consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the Rules of
the House of Representatives to provide for enforcement of
clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as read.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
resolution to final adoption without intervening motion or
demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2)
one motion to recommit.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the
[[Page H11563]]
Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 56). Here's how
the Rules Committee described the rule using information from
Congressional Quarterly's ``American Congressional
Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is defeated, control
of debate shifts to the leading opposition member (usually
the minority Floor Manager) who then manages an hour of
debate and may offer a germane amendment to the pending
business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.
____________________