[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.

                          ____________________