[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 27287-27298]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING WITHHOLDING OF INFORMATION 
                     RELATING TO CORRUPTION IN IRAQ

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 741, I call up the 
resolution (H. Res. 734) expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives regarding the withholding of information relating to 
corruption in Iraq, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                              H. Res. 734

       Whereas Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for 
     Iraq Reconstruction, testified before the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform on October 4, 2007, that the 
     ``rising tide of corruption in Iraq'' is ``a second 
     insurgency'' that ``stymies the construction and maintenance 
     of Iraq's infrastructure, deprives people of goods and 
     services, reduces confidence in public institutions, and 
     potentially aids insurgent groups reportedly funded by graft 
     derived from oil smuggling or embezzlement'';
       Whereas David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States, testified at the hearing 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'';
       Whereas Judge Radhi Hamza al-Radhi, the former Commissioner 
     of the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity, testified at the 
     hearing 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 officials in Iraq'', that ``the Ministry 
     of Oil [is] effectively financing terrorism'', and that Prime 
     Minister Nouri al-Maliki ``has protected some of his 
     relatives that were involved in corruption'';
       Whereas the Independent Commission on the Security Forces 
     of Iraq, chaired by General James L. Jones, U.S.M.C. (Ret.), 
     reported on September 6, 2007, that ``sectarianism and 
     corruption are pervasive in the MOI [Ministry of Interior] 
     and cripple the ministry's ability to accomplish its mission 
     to provide internal security of Iraqi citizens'' and that 
     ``the National Police should be disbanded and reorganized'';
       Whereas on September 25, 2007, the State Department 
     instructed officials not to answer questions in an open 
     setting that ask for ``Broad statements/assessments which 
     judge or characterize the quality of Iraqi governance or the 
     ability/determination of the Iraqi government to deal with 
     corruption, including allegations that investigations were 
     thwarted/stifled for political reasons'';
       Whereas Members of the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform asked Ambassador Lawrence Butler, Deputy 
     Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, at the 
     hearing whether ``the Government of Iraq currently has the 
     political will or the capability to root out corruption 
     within its Government'', whether ``the Maliki Government is 
     working hard to improve the corruption situation so that he 
     can unite his country'', and whether Prime Minister Maliki 
     ``obstructed any anticorruption investigations in Iraq to 
     protect his political allies'';
       Whereas Ambassador Butler refused to answer these questions 
     at the hearing because ``questions which go to the broad 
     nature of our bilateral relationship with Iraq are best 
     answered in a classified setting'', although he did answer 
     questions at the hearing that portrayed the Iraqi Government 
     in a positive light;
       Whereas the State Department retroactively classified 
     portions of the report titled ``Stabilizing and Rebuilding 
     Iraq: U.S. Ministry Capacity Development Efforts Need an 
     Overall Integrated Strategy to Guide Efforts and Manage 
     Risk'', which was released at the hearing by Comptroller 
     General Walker and which addressed the commitment of

[[Page 27288]]

     the Iraqi government to enforce anticorruption laws;
       Whereas the State Department also retroactively classified 
     two reports on corruption in Iraq prepared by the Office of 
     Accountability and Transparency in the United States Embassy 
     in Iraq;
       Whereas the United States has spent over $450,000,000,000 
     on the war in Iraq and the President is seeking over 
     $150,000,000,000 more; and
       Whereas more than 3,800 members of the United States Armed 
     Forces have been killed in Iraq and more than 28,000 have 
     been wounded: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that--
       (1) as Congress considers the President's request for over 
     $150,000,000,000 more for the war in Iraq, it is essential 
     that Congress and the people of the United States know the 
     extent of corruption in the Iraqi government and whether 
     corruption is fueling the insurgency and endangering members 
     of the United States Armed Forces;
       (2) it was wrong to retroactively classify portions of the 
     report titled ``Stabilizing and Rebuilding Iraq: U.S. 
     Ministry Capacity Development Efforts Need an Overall 
     Integrated Strategy to Guide Efforts and Manage Risk'', which 
     was released by the Comptroller General of the United States 
     at the hearing of the Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform on October 4, 2007, and other statements that are 
     embarrassing but do not meet the criteria for classification;
       (3) it is an abuse of the classification process to 
     withhold from Congress and the people of the United States 
     broad assessments of the extent of corruption in the Iraqi 
     Government; and
       (4) the directive that prohibits Federal Government 
     officials from providing Congress and the people of the 
     United States with ``broad statements/assessments which judge 
     or characterize the quality of Iraqi governance or the 
     ability/determination of the Iraqi government to deal with 
     corruption, including allegations that investigations were 
     thwarted/stifled for political reasons'' should be rescinded.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 741, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Tom Davis) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Today we mark an ominous anniversary. It was 5 years ago today that 
President Bush signed the congressional authorization to use military 
force in Iraq. As we have learned since, that authorization was based 
on fatally flawed information. Congress and the American people were 
told that we needed to go to war against Saddam Hussein because he had 
weapons of mass destruction. But there were no nuclear bombs or 
biological weapons.
  Now, 5 years later, more than 3,800 U.S. servicemembers have been 
killed, more than 28,000 have been injured, and the U.S. taxpayers have 
spent more than $450 billion; and Iraq is in shambles.
  Today we are considering a different resolution. The purpose of 
today's resolution is simple: to end the abuse of the classification 
process and to demand the truth about corruption in Iraq.
  We must stop the pattern of dissembling and the misuse of classified 
information. President Bush is now asking taxpayers for an additional 
$150 billion to support the war and to support Iraqi Prime Minister 
Nouri al-Maliki. But . . . is not being honest about the level of 
corruption in the Maliki government.
  Just as it did 5 years ago, the Bush administration is hiding the 
truth while seeking hundreds of billions of dollars and placing our 
troops in danger. We cannot allow this to happen.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I ask that his words be taken down for 
disparagement of the Bush administration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the words.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. WAXMAN. I gather that the offensive word is that ``he'' is not 
being honest, and what I intended to say is that the Bush 
administration is not being honest. I think that removes the objection 
that would lie against a personal disparagement, so I would seek to 
make that clarification and ask unanimous consent to withdraw that 
spoken word.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I have no objection as long as the 
admonishment of the Chair would be that, in fact, there is a caution as 
to disparaging or appearing to disparage the office or the person of 
the President or the Vice President under our rules.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair can affirm that with respect to 
the person, as a response to a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. ISSA. I thank the gentleman, and that is an acceptable UC.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration is hiding the truth 
while seeking hundreds of billions of dollars and placing our troops in 
danger, and we cannot allow this to happen.
  We need answers to some very important questions: How corrupt is the 
Maliki government? Are top officials in Iraq stealing billions of 
dollars to fund insurgents who are attacking and killing our troops? Is 
corruption undermining the chances for political reconciliation?
  Secretary of State Rice says she will answer these questions only on 
one condition: every Member of Congress who hears the answers has to 
keep the answers secret. Well, that's an outrageous abuse of the 
classification system.
  Earlier this month, the former head of the Iraqi Commission on Public 
Integrity, Judge Radhi, testified before the Oversight Committee. He 
told us that corrupt Iraqi officials had stolen a staggering $18 
billion and used part of that money to fund terrorists. He told us that 
when he tried to track down who was responsible, well, 31 of his 
investigators were brutally assassinated, and his own family living in 
the Green Zone was targeted twice with rocket attacks. And he gave us 
copies of secret orders that Prime Minister Maliki personally issued to 
protect his allies, including his own cousin, from corruption 
investigations and prosecutions.
  Judge Radhi, Special Inspector General Stuart Bowen and Comptroller 
General David Walker all told us that corruption is so entrenched in 
Iraq that it is jeopardizing our troops and our mission. But when we 
asked the State Department for unclassified documents about the extent 
of corruption in the Maliki government, Secretary Rice retroactively 
classified them. And when we asked the embassy officials when they knew 
about corruption, she ordered them not to respond.
  Secretary Rice has made public statements praising the anticorruption 
efforts of the Maliki government, and he, himself, she praised; and she 
even praised the corrupt Interior Ministry. But when we asked embassy 
officials in Iraq whether her public statements were accurate, they 
said they were not allowed to respond unless we agreed to keep their 
answers secret.
  Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago, abusive classified information got us into 
this war. It's time for these abuses to end, and that's why we ask all 
Members to support this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise today to speak on H. Res. 734, a resolution about corruption 
in Iraq.
  Corruption, the theft of public resources for private gain, saps the 
life out of everything it touches. The fact that official corruption 
has long undermined government effectiveness and public confidence in 
Iraq and throughout the Middle East should come as no news to anyone. 
But no one believes rampant corruption is inevitable or tolerable in 
Iraq. Republicans don't support corruption, Democrats don't support 
corruption, so the pace and reach of our efforts to help the Iraqis 
prevent, deter, investigate and punish corruption in their struggling 
democracy should be one thing, perhaps the only thing, about our policy 
in Iraq that we can agree on.
  But we were never given the chance to agree. The language of this 
resolution has never been considered by any committee. Why not? Just 
last week, four House Committee chairmen wrote

[[Page 27289]]

to the Secretary of State asking for her cooperation in ``finding 
solutions'' to corruption in Iraq. So those committees apparently have 
an interest in the issues raised by the resolution. But none of them 
ever considered this language. Why not? Because this resolution is just 
the latest find in the frantic search for proxy antiwar votes that the 
leadership has staged to feed an increasingly restive left wing of 
their party. Unable to prevail directly, they ignore regular order and 
nibble around the edges with symbols, surrogates, and sense of Congress 
resolutions.
  In this political environment, it almost doesn't matter how we vote 
since the resolution means so little and accomplishes even less. But, 
fairly or not, as has been voiced by several Members on the other side, 
a ``no'' vote would be portrayed as ``pro-corruption.'' That's 
unfortunate, and it didn't have to be that way.
  Both the committee majority and the State Department have gone out of 
their way to politicize the discussion of corruption in Iraq. This 
resolution cherry-picks statements from our hearing testimony and tries 
to pick a fight with the Secretary of State over access to certain 
information. I offered a substitute to try to bring some balance and 
perspective to this resolution, but it was rejected by the majority in 
the Rules Committee. I will talk more about that substitute later.
  For its part, the State Department's process for answering our 
inquiries about anticorruption assistance to Iraq has been sluggish and 
poorly thought out. When requested documents failed to show up, we 
didn't demand a committee vote on subpoenas the chairman decided to 
send to the Department. It's a separation of powers issue. The 
committee has a right to timely and meaningful access to information 
about executive branch programs and operations. The Department then 
classified information already, irretrievably, in the public domain. As 
a result of that decision, they felt compelled to limit open discussion 
on what everybody already knows about corruption in Iraq.
  Had the State Department witness at our hearing said to the committee 
what Ambassador Satterfield said in today's Washington Post, broadly 
speaking about the Iraqi Government's political will to fight 
corruption, we might not have needed to consider this resolution at 
all.
  Nevertheless, this is obviously not a resolution I'd bring to the 
floor to assert our constitutional rights. Both the process and the 
product tend to trivialize a serious and pernicious problem by reducing 
it to the terms of a spat over what State Department employees can say 
in an open forum and classification of a few sentences and two reports. 
It's a transparent attempt to draw the Secretary of State into a highly 
visible, but completely avoidable, conflict with the Oversight 
Committee.
  What is the House being asked to ``resolve'' in this resolution? That 
we should know ``the extent of corruption in Iraq''? That it was wrong 
to ``retroactively classify'' two draft State Department reports that 
had never been reviewed for sensitive information before? That it's an 
abuse of the classification process to ``withhold'' broad, unverified 
assessments of a foreign government by low-level State Department 
employees? And that a ``directive'' limiting discussion of potentially 
sensitive matters to a closed setting should be rescinded? Let me take 
them one by one.
  The phrase ``the extent of corruption in Iraq'' is used several 
times. In truth, it's code for the unspoken conclusion that if we only 
knew the real level of corruption, we would all conclude Iraq could 
never stand on its own. But contrary to what this resolution implies, 
it's no secret there is widespread corruption in Iraq. We concede that. 
It's sadly well documented, from the scandalous Oil-for-Food Program in 
the 1990s to present-day diversion of oil revenues. Corruption is a 
critical concern to the United States Government, to the Iraqi 
Government, and to the Iraqi people.
  No amount of handwringing or feigned indignation can avoid the hard 
truth that the United States did not bring corruption to Iraq, and it 
won't stop when we leave. And no spreadsheet or corruption clock will 
ever give us the real-time cost of bribes and the real-time cost of 
graft there.
  Focusing on the extent of corruption rather than the extent of 
anticorruption efforts betrays a desire to publicize corruption, not 
help fix it.
  On the classification question, in all honesty, I have my doubts 
whether the State Department's reports should have been classified. A 
sloppy process in Baghdad leaked them; they're on the Internet right 
now. It's probably counterproductive to put that genie back in the 
bottle. The Department simply should have said, ``The reports got out. 
Our mistake. But they represent only the collected anecdotes and flavor 
added by the authors and were not official policy statements of the 
United States.'' That could have avoided the whole fight over 
classification, but they didn't do it.
  On the question of ``withholding'' information, there is a 
difference, and in my judgment an important difference, between hiding 
information and simply exercising appropriate caution and good 
management in deciding who makes official statements about U.S. 
relations with another sovereign state and where those statements are 
made.
  More determined to be aggrieved than informed, the committee refused 
repeated efforts and offers to question witnesses in a setting that 
could permit us to discuss sensitive and classified information.
  If anything constructive comes out of passage of this resolution, I 
hope it's to refocus and reenergize State Department anticorruption 
efforts in Iraq. They need it. That might not be the goal of all those 
that are voting for this resolution, but it's my goal in voting for it, 
and it's the only positive outcome that I can see.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), the chairman of the 
subcommittee dealing with international relations of the Oversight 
Committee.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, the fundamental issue before us on this 
resolution is whether or not this institution, the Congress, is going 
to absolutely carry out its oversight responsibilities and demand that 
the executive branch provide to us materials we need to make reasonable 
determinations as to whether or not there is an extent of corruption in 
Iraq with respect to what is going on there, but also whether or not 
our State Department and other agencies are doing all they should do to 
build up the capacity of the Iraqi Government to be able to combat 
corruption.
  In December 2006, and again in July of 2007, the United States 
Embassy in Iraq produced two reports that weighed on those issues, 
corruption in the Iraqi Government, and would have shown us some 
capacity of whether or not the United States was doing enough about it. 
They were marked ``sensitive but unclassified.'' And they were widely 
distributed within the United States Government and they were even 
posted on the Internet.
  In September, the Oversight Committee requested copies of those two 
documents. But rather than provide them in their unclassified form, the 
State Department decided to retroactively classify them, in essence, 
keeping them from public view or from public debate.
  The State Department classified these documents only after the 
committee requested that they be produced. And they gave this task to 
an official who told the committee he had never in his life been 
requested to review for classification before.
  Incredibly, the State Department then retroactively also classified 
key portions of a Government Accountability Office report that was 
issued to the Oversight Committee at a public hearing on October 4. 
Now, David Walker, the Comptroller General, testified in open session 
that this Government Accountability Office report addressed corruption 
in Iraq and the failure of the United States agencies to properly 
support capacity-building efforts in Iraqi ministries. This is not

[[Page 27290]]

about just deciding how much corruption there was in playing that. It's 
about deciding whether or not there had been sufficient capacity-
building efforts in Iraq ministries to prevent corruption.
  Mr. Walker issued the report, copies were handed out to the press, 
and it was posted on the Internet. But after the hearing, the State 
Department classified those portions of the report that addressed 
Iraq's commitment or a lack of commitment to fighting corruption. And 
yesterday, the State Department claimed in a letter to Congress that 
they classified the Government Accountability Office report prior to 
official publication, but, in fact, when we checked with the Government 
Accountability Office, they said that was not true. The State 
Department reviewed this report before it was released. They confirmed 
that it contained no classified information. It was not until after the 
report was released at the public hearing that the State Department 
retroactively classified it.
  Secretary Rice may not want the public to know what the Government 
Accountability Office found when it investigated whether the Maliki 
government is committed to fighting corruption, or they may not want 
the public to know whether or not the government is actually working 
hard enough to build the necessary capacity to stop and check 
corruption in Iraq. But it's a gross abuse of the administration's 
powers to retroactively classify these findings and the findings of the 
State Department's own embassy officials and to do it retroactively.
  Classification cannot be allowed to happen primarily because people 
think they're going to be embarrassed, whatever government may be 
embarrassed. Congress has to exercise its prerogative here and do the 
proper oversight for the protection of our troops and of the public's 
interests.
  Testimony was that some $18 billion in corruption was occurring in 
Iraq, and that was without going into the oil ministry, where 
significant further corruption was believed to happen. Testimony was 
that monies from that corruption were going to fund militias, who in 
turn were placing their focus on targeting United States troops.
  It is imperative that this Congress investigate whether or not, 
through review of these documents and other sources, we are making 
enough efforts to build the capacity in Iraq to make sure that that 
corruption stops and that our troops, our men and women in service, are 
not being targeted through corruption.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important matter. This is the prerogative of 
this House. This should not be about partisan politics or protecting 
the home team. This should be about making sure that we protect our 
troops and the public interest.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, the former chairman of the 
committee (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Thank you, Mr. Davis, for yielding the time.
  You know, I get such a kick out of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle, in particular the chairman of the committee. He was my 
ranking Democrat for 6 years. And during those 6 years we investigated 
the illegalities of the Clinton administration that took place, and he 
blocked and defended the administration, as I would expect him to do 
because he is a Democrat, every single time. But the thing that 
interests me is he's talking about corruption in our State Department. 
We sent out over 1,000 subpoenas, and he and his side tried to stop us 
at every turn in the road to get to the bottom of corruption during the 
Clinton years. We had over 100 people in the administration and 
associated with the administration either take the fifth amendment or 
flee the country. We have pictures of them up on the wall, people that 
would not testify, that had memory loss. We said there was an epidemic 
of memory loss at the White House. People were leaving the country. 
People were taking the fifth amendment. They wouldn't give us any 
information. They blocked us time after time after time for 4 years.
  And so today, here they are on the floor talking about corruption and 
being blocked by the State Department when they are the authors of this 
process. They're the ones who did it for 4 straight years to protect 
Bill Clinton and his administration when there was no question about 
corruption in that administration.
  We sent five criminal referrals to the Justice Department during the 
time I was chairman, and they and their colleagues in the Justice 
Department, the head of the Justice Department blocked us at every step 
of the way, every turn in the road. And here they are today complaining 
about our State Department, during a time of war, trying to deal with 
the problems over there, and they're alleging a cover-up, blockage and 
everything else. You know, there is nothing so righteous as a lady of 
the evening who is reformed. And so I just want to say to my colleagues 
tonight that this is another example of you coming to this floor 
complaining about the administration blocking you when you did it for 4 
straight years. You did it every day, you did it every night, and now 
you're complaining because we're trying to do something about the war 
in Iraq and we're stopping you from getting some information that you 
think is absolutely essential. Where were you when we were 
investigating Clinton? Why didn't you want that stuff to come out?


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members are reminded to please direct 
their remarks through the Chair.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I will direct this to you, Mr. Speaker.
  For 4 years, they did exactly what they're accusing this 
administration of doing, and they did it in spades. When people 
wouldn't testify, they stuck up for them. When people took the fifth 
amendment, they stuck up for them.

                              {time}  1415

  When people from the administration came down here to testify and 
couldn't remember anything, they helped block the testimony coming 
before the committee. So today, they are complaining about the very 
things that they did for four straight years and during a time of war.
  Mr. Waxman, I just want to say to you one more time I appreciate your 
reformation. I appreciate your changing. I am happy you are seeing the 
light. But I don't know why you didn't do it when I was chairman.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that Mr. Burton, who was 
chairman of our committee, issued thousands of subpoenas. He received 
millions of pages of documents. He had hundreds of hours of 
depositions. He conducted an investigation that has been widely 
regarded as irresponsible and reckless.
  Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland to 
speak on this resolution.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Chairman Waxman, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 734, a resolution 
expressing our dismay at the withholding of information relating to 
Iraqi corruption, which I have cosponsored.
  By all accounts, Iraq was a corrupt state at the time of the U.S. 
invasion. Unfortunately, it remains so today. The nonpartisan group, 
Transparency International, finds that the Iraqi Government is the 
world's third most corrupt country more than 4 years after Saddam 
Hussein was ousted.
  In an October 4 hearing of the Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee, we listened to the heart-wrenching testimony of Judge al-
Radhi, the former Commissioner of the Iraqi Commission on Public 
Integrity. During his tenure, the judge uncovered up to $18 billion in 
funds that were lost as a result of corruption. Rather than receive the 
accolades for his efforts, however, Judge Radhi faced severe 
retaliation instead. He told us of the horrible atrocities that he and 
his family and that of his staff suffered at the hands of those who 
aimed to stifle his investigations.
  In total, 31 people from his office and 12 of their family members 
were killed. Many endured unspeakable torture, their bodies hung from 
meat hooks.

[[Page 27291]]

Judge Radhi's own home was struck by rockets. Harassment eventually 
reached the point that he was forced to flee his own country. This is 
not the sort of environment that leads to the free and democratic Iraqi 
society that President Bush is so fond of invoking.
  We cannot achieve a victory in Iraq as long as we allow corruption to 
continue unchecked. Unfortunately, officials of the U.S. Department of 
State do not appear to agree. Following our hearing, the Department 
retroactively classified reports and portions of reports that detailed 
problems with Iraqi corruption. These actions represent a blatant 
attempt to manipulate the classification process to stave off bad 
publicity.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad reality indeed. I find it ironic that 
our own government is engaging in obstructive practices in an attempt 
to cover up the truth about corruption in Iraq. I urge all of my 
colleagues to join us in sending a very strong message to the 
administration that these practices will not be tolerated by voting in 
favor of H. Res. 734.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I 
appreciate what the chairman of the committee has done in holding the 
hearings and the investigations. I think this is something the American 
people should know. There is no question about that. But there are 
particular concerns that go to the particular content of the 
resolution. The chairman and I have discussed this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Issa).
  Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
  Mr. Speaker, the chairman of this committee cannot have it both ways. 
And the Speaker of the House cannot have it both ways. In their blind 
hatred for this administration and the President, they would have you 
believe on Tuesday of last week that you must believe the Ministry of 
Interior in Iraq and you must believe that the veterans, now serving 
for Blackwater, murdered in cold blood 17 Iraqis who were unarmed, 
defenseless, simply for the sport of it. On Tuesday, that is what Erik 
Prince had to deal with on the orders of Speaker Pelosi and dealt out 
by Chairman Waxman.
  That was Tuesday. By Thursday, we were looking at what we see here 
today, that the administration was covering up so much corruption, 
particularly the corruption of the Ministry of Interior. Mr. Speaker, I 
am going to vote for this resolution not because it is flawless. It has 
its understandable flaws. But I am going to vote for it because in the 
whereases it says, whereas, the independent commission on security 
forces of Iraq chaired by General James L. Jones (Retired) reported on 
September 6, 2007 that ``sectarianism and corruption are pervasive in 
the Ministry of Interior and cripple the ministry's ability to 
accomplish its mission.''
  It goes on and on to make the point I am making, just as the majority 
has already made, Mr. Speaker, and that is that in order to believe 
that combat veterans, special forces veterans, Green Berets and special 
forces SEALS now out of the military and out of harm's way in Iraq 
working for Blackwater, in order to believe that they murdered in cold 
blood defenseless civilians at an intersection just for sport just 
after a bomb went off, you would have had to believe the Minister of 
Interior. And Mr. Waxman would have had the committee believe that on 
Tuesday. But by Thursday, of course, we have the coverup of such 
rampant corruption. Yet in the very, very resolution, we have an 
independent commission headed by a distinguished former general say, in 
no uncertain terms, there is rampant and widespread corruption. That 
has not been taken back by the administration.
  Mr. Speaker, what I would say is Mr. Waxman and the Speaker of the 
House, Nancy Pelosi, cannot have it both ways. They cannot go after our 
troops in harm's way, our contractors serving in those capacities 
similar, most of them, if not all of them veterans, they cannot 
denounce every aspect of this war, how we got there and when we go 
there and then say, but this group is so corrupt we must leave.
  The previous speaker, Mr. Speaker, went out of his way to say the 
third from the bottom in corruption is Iraq, never mentioning that 
Burma was below that. Burma managed to be one of the two at the very 
bottom. Mr. Speaker, would the majority have us pull out our 
representation and support in Burma and leave to those who are already 
the victims of corruption an even more corrupt government? Or would 
they, given that this administration in their view is not doing enough, 
say, We should do more, we should engage, we should spend the money 
insisting on transparency and reform?
  Mr. Speaker, I am voting for this resolution because, in fact, I 
believe the majority and the minority should agree that there is 
corruption, corruption so widespread in Iraq for the Minister of 
Interior to frame men and women in harm's way in order to get them out 
of the way. I do not want this body and this Congress to be a party to 
framing Americans who are putting their lives on the line as patriots 
in Iraq.
  I ask that people support it on both sides, not because Mr. Waxman 
isn't trying to have it both ways, but because, in fact, there is 
corruption in Iraq, and hopefully, at some point, he will begin to 
believe loyal Americans over those very corrupt entities that he 
denounces in other parts of his resolution.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I don't understand the argument the 
gentleman made. But I like his conclusion. So we welcome his support 
for our resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich), a very esteemed member of our committee.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. One 
must put this debate in perspective. The administration certainly 
helped to create the war. Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, 
but Iraq did have one thing that is very valuable, and that is oil. The 
administration helped create the war. They created the Coalition 
Provisional Authority, and they helped to create the Maliki government. 
Now they are withholding information and classifying previously 
unclassified information. Again, no WMDs in Iraq, but oil.
  I maintain that has all been about oil. The administration looks the 
other way on corruption, putting great pressure on the Maliki 
government at this very moment to privatize 20 to $30 trillion worth of 
Iraqi oil assets. Now, they can classify all they want over at the 
White House. But this is still about oil. It can't classify nearly 
3,800 deaths of our soldiers. They can't classify 1 million deaths of 
innocent Iraqis. They can't classify that the war will cost up to $2 
trillion. They can't classify that they are borrowing money from China 
to fight a war against Iraq. This war has been based on lies. We agree 
we should all abide by the rules of the House. We should also abide by 
the United States Constitution. That is why I support this bill. It is 
also why I support accountability, and I support impeachment.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I would like to inquire as to how much 
time I have.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schiff). The gentleman from Virginia has 
16 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 16\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), a member of our committee.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that the American people 
understand what exactly is going on here. This is not about the Clinton 
administration. It is not about Blackwater.
  I just want to touch on a few facts here. Number one, $450 billion 
has already been committed by this President and his administration 
toward the war in Iraq. Recently, the President has come back to us 
with a request for an additional $150 billion also to be spent in Iraq 
on, among other things, schools, roads, bridges, power plants,

[[Page 27292]]

water treatment facilities, not in the United States, but in Iraq.
  Now, Congress, our responsibility here, we have the power of the 
purse. The power of the purse is not simply the power to open the 
purse, but it also includes the duty and the obligation to inspect 
appropriations and to inquire whether or not this country, this 
government, who has had the benefit of, if the bill goes through, it 
will be $600 billion, we have the duty to inquire whether that 
government is corrupt.
  We received several reports, one from the Special Inspector General 
for Iraq Reconstruction, Mr. Stuart Bowen, who indicates there is 
widespread corruption. There is a commission headed by General James 
Jones, United States Marine Corps, indicating there is widespread 
corruption in Iraq among the government, and again by Comptroller 
General David Walker, who indicated, again, there is widespread 
corruption in Iraq.
  We have requested, in response to these reports, testimony and 
documents from the State Department. They have said ``no.'' They have 
said, no, they would not testify; they would not give us documents. 
Chairman Waxman had to join with the committee and we issued four 
subpoenas. They were joined in by my respected colleague from Virginia 
(Mr. Davis) who agreed that he would support the subpoenas, as well. 
However, they did not give us all the documents. The witnesses came 
forward, but refused to testify as to the level of corruption in Iraq. 
They have denied Congress the access to the information we need.
  There's a strong irony here; it is inescapable to me. The State 
Department has retroactively classified two reports by its own 
officials regarding Iraqi corruption. Do you know, it is ironic, the 
name of the office inside the U.S. Embassy that wrote those reports? It 
is the Office of Accountability and Transparency. They have refused to 
give us information. They are the ones who are supposed to be teaching 
the Iraqi Government how to be more transparent, how to be more 
accountable to their own government.
  What about the other report the State Department classified, 
basically has hidden from the American people? Who issued that one? The 
Government Accountability Office. The statement retroactively 
classified that one, too. If this were not so serious, it would be 
laughable. These offices were set up with the express mission of 
calling the government to account, not only the Government of Iraq but 
also the Government of the United States. This effort to classify this 
information has been done for the express purpose of saving the Maliki 
government from embarrassment because of the allegations of corruption 
regarding their officials.
  So here we are supposed to be exporting democracy, but what we are 
doing here now is covering up for a corrupt government at the expense 
of the American people. And the irony runs deep. The Bush 
administration says we are in Iraq to spread democracy and the rule of 
law; but, instead, it appears that we are, indeed, complicit with the 
corruption that is going on in the Maliki government.
  I question how it makes America look not only to Iraqis but to our 
own citizens. I believe it does render us complicit. It harms our core 
mission. It does not win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. It loses 
them. America must lead by action and by example, not by suppressing 
public discussing of corruption in government.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Just to put it in perspective, the report 
was, I think, something like 60 pages. It was called back for five 
sentences.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Hunter), the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, now 
the ranking member.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution. Let me just speak to 
the point that is made by the resolution that talks about the need to 
disclose in open session facts which would deal with corruption, and I 
am quoting, ``including allegations that investigations were thwarted, 
stifled for political reasons, and that that classification should be 
rescinded.''
  I have looked at Mr. Butler's testimony to the committee. I have read 
it. I have got it in front of me. He talks a great deal, acknowledging 
that there is corruption in the Iraqi Government, as there is in 
practically every government in the Middle East, to some degree. He 
talks about that.
  Mr. Speaker, he also said that he would be happy to talk about 
details concerning any political moves to avert investigations into 
corruption. He would be happy to talk about those details in a 
classified session. So he gave that opportunity, as I understand it, to 
the committee, and the committee didn't take him up on it.
  I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that sources and methods are 
important. If there was a secret conversation that went on in the Iraqi 
Government and that secret conversation was listened to by somebody who 
then relayed that to the U.S. Government, or U.S. officials, laying 
that out for the public without going into classified session would not 
be good for American intelligence operations. This committee could have 
gone into classified session and had all the details that they needed.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this particular resolution.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I can understand what the gentleman is 
saying about sources and methods, and we understand that under some 
circumstances talking about it in public session might be harmful. But 
we asked the representative from the State Department questions, such 
as whether the Government of Iraq currently has the political will or 
the capability to root out corruption within its government. We were 
told he couldn't answer that in a public session. That is the problem 
that we are complaining about in this resolution.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, what I have in front of me is the actual 
testimony of Mr. Butler, who says this: ``The Department of State has 
devoted considerable effort and resources helping courageous Iraqis 
establish mechanisms and procedures to investigate and prosecute 
corruption.'' He says, ``It's fair to say we probably do not have a 
program in the ministerial capacity development area that does not seek 
to build an environment in which corruption is less prevalent.'' He 
goes on to talk about what has been done. So he does engage you on this 
issue of corruption.
  I think you could have gone to a classified session, as was invited 
by Mr. Butler, you could have gone to a classified session, he invited 
you to do that, and he would give you the details on that particular 
conversation. Incidentally, the particular conversation that you're 
talking about is the one that is manifested in your resolution. It's 
not this statement that you have just given me. It's the one that is in 
your resolution. You could have had him do that in private.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Let me say that who speaks for the State 
Department at certain times and how nuanced the statement is going to 
be is very important in diplomatic jargon in terms of what its meaning 
is. I think that was one of the difficulties they had at that time.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for his time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that we asked Mr. 
Butler from the State Department questions such as whether the Maliki 
government is working hard to improve the corruption situation so that 
he can unite his country. We were told he could not answer that 
question unless we went into closed session, which would mean that if 
he answered it in closed session, it would be a national security 
violation for any of us to report his response. That was what was so 
offensive. They did not want to even discuss a broad kind of questions 
which

[[Page 27293]]

go to the nature of our bilateral relations with Iraq how they are 
doing and what our efforts are doing and whether we are succeeding in 
stopping the corruption in Iraq, which is jeopardizing our mission and 
endangering our troops.
  I would like to now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Yarmuth).
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, last week Lieutenant General Ricardo 
Sanchez, who led our forces in Iraq when the vast majority of the 
American public had yet to turn against the war, emphatically agreed 
with those of us who criticized the invasion and occupation from the 
start. In calling the situation a ``nightmare,'' Lieutenant General 
Sanchez referred to the ``unfortunate display of incompetent strategic 
leadership.''
  But from what I have seen from my seat on the Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee, with all due respect to the Lieutenant 
General, he is wrong. The administration isn't failing to implement the 
strategic leadership needed to bring peace to the region and protect 
our young men and women risking their lives in Iraq; they are refusing.
  David Walker, U.S. Comptroller General, said that widespread 
corruption is robbing Iraq of the resources to develop the government 
and is funding the very insurgency we are fighting. Rather than working 
to end or mend this catastrophe, the State Department has instructed 
its officials not to cooperate. Instead of using the ``Stabilizing and 
Rebuilding Iraq'' report to rectify the problem, they classified it 
retroactively, giving the impression that honest information is seen by 
this administration as politically embarrassing rather than 
constructive.
  Mr. Speaker, regardless of how they see it, they owe it to the 
American people not to ignore factors that endanger our soldiers, 
jeopardize Iraqi stability, and squander upwards of $18 billion due to 
corruption. In today's terms, that is 2\1/2\ years of health care for 4 
million children through SCHIP. But this isn't merely a case of 
ignoring crucial information. Our government is actually covering up 
the rampant corruption, which Inspector General Bowen has referred to 
as ``a second insurgency.''
  With article I of the Constitution, our Nation's Founders protected 
us against this abuse by calling for a representative government with 
all legislative powers vested in the hands of a Congress. By defying 
that mandate, the Bush administration is defying the American people. 
So I call on the President to return to those Constitutional principles 
by dropping the veil of secrecy and restoring the open, honest 
government envisioned by the Framers, demanded by the people, and 
depended upon by our soldiers.
  Mr. Speaker, saying ``supporting the troops'' is one thing, but 
following through with actions is something entirely different. That 
means admitting our deficiencies so that we can correct them. For the 
3,820 warriors we lost in Iraq, and for the more than 165,000 serving 
there today on the ground, I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 734, 
and call on the administration to level with us and support our troops 
abroad.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just add that official diplomatic statements, 
even under oath in congressional testimony, critical of foreign 
governments, have consequences. Criticizing foreign governments through 
official statements of our government, when you are trying to get them 
to comply with other things, have consequences. Criticizing specific 
ministries, which were some of the questions asked, have consequences 
within a fragile political framework of the Iraqi current coalitions, 
and, for one reason or another, the State Department felt that, at 
least in an open forum, they felt constrained to make appropriate 
statements.
  However, I think it is clear from the amount of testimony and the 
volume of testimony and the substance of the testimony that we have 
heard that there has been corruption in Iraq for a long time. It 
continues, it will probably continue after we leave, and it is 
something that this Congress and the American people need to know 
about, and we can address it here on the House floor.
  This resolution was introduced dealing with corruption in Iraq and 
the State Department's attempts to cover up the extent of the 
corruption, or, I should say, the alleged attempts. This quotes various 
witnesses that have appeared before our committee over the last several 
years to discuss the affairs of Iraq.
  Along with the chairman, I participated in those hearings, too, and I 
listened to what the witnesses had to say, and I share his concern 
about the extent of corruption in Iraq, and I hope every Member does. 
But I am concerned about the way that the statements are being 
portrayed, the statements by the panels of expert witnesses who 
appeared before our committee, because in this resolution, it only 
paints half the picture.
  I offered to work with the chairman to come up with a resolution that 
in my judgment paints a more complete picture of the extent of 
corruption in Iraq, but the offer wasn't accepted. I then, in good 
faith, filed an amendment with the Rules Committee that accepted 
basically the resolution that was presented by the chairman but added 
some additional whereas and resolved clauses that I thought provided a 
more accurate, bipartisan perspective on the extent of corruption in 
Iraq.
  For example, the chairman's resolution quotes Stuart Bowen, the 
Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction, as stating before 
the committee on October 4 that the ``rising tide of corruption in Iraq 
stymies the construction and maintenance of Iraq's infrastructure, 
deprives people of goods and services, reduces confidence in public 
institutions, and potentially aides insurgent groups reportedly funded 
by graft derived from oil smuggling or embezzlement.''
  I concur with the chairman's concerns about this particular statement 
by Mr. Bowen and included the same statement in the amendments that we 
proposed. But I also added an additional quote made by Mr. Bowen at the 
hearing that says, ``Iraq has a history of corruption'' and ``the 
United States did not bring corruption to Iraq, and it will not be gone 
whenever we leave.''
  He said that, but apparently that proposed addition didn't fit the 
theme of what the majority is trying to do this week.
  Additionally, the chairman's resolution quotes David Walker, the 
well-respected Comptroller General of the United States, as stating 
before our committee 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.''
  I concur with the chairman's concerns about that statement made by 
Mr. Walker, something we want the world to know, Congress should be 
aware of. I included the same statement in the amendments that I 
proposed. But I also added an additional quote by General Walker at the 
hearing that says, ``none of us should underestimate the challenges of 
establishing strong and transparent government institutions in the wake 
of a dictatorship where corruption was woven into the very fabric of 
governing. And none of us should underestimate the challenge of rooting 
out corruption in a combat zone, even one where violence is diminishing 
as we have seen over the past 6 months.''
  Apparently this proposed addition also failed to fit the majority's 
tidy little box for discussion this week.
  Another example, the resolution highlights the fact that the State 
Department instructed officials not to answer certain questions. My 
amendment included the same language as the chairman's but added an 
additional whereas to acknowledge the fact that the State Department 
counsel, concerned about the specific assessments regarding the 
government's capacities of Iraq Ministries and Ministers made in an 
open setting, and that these statements could affect the United States' 
bilateral relationship with the Government of Iraq and could put in 
danger the lives of Americans, of our allies, repeatedly offered to 
make United States Government officials and employees available to 
respond to

[[Page 27294]]

questions regarding potentially sensitive or classified information, 
including foreign government information, in an appropriate secure 
setting where we wouldn't be endangering lives.
  But that truthful statement went too far as well to include in this 
resolution.
  The resolution also states that the State Department retroactively 
classified two reports on corruption in Iraq prepared by the Office of 
Accountability and Transparency in the United States Embassy in Iraq. I 
included the same whereas clause, but simply added an additional 
whereas, to explain that the original leaked report was an internal, 
unpublished, unedited and unapproved draft report on corruption in Iraq 
that, as described by one U.S. Embassy Baghdad employee has been 
embellished with anecdotes for flavor. The report had not been properly 
reviewed and vetted for classification purposes before.
  The majority was not interested in including that explanation for why 
the State Department chose to classify the report.
  Finally, my amendment would have included all but one of the 
chairman's resolved clauses and then added a handful of additional 
clauses to paint a more accurate picture of the extent and cause of 
corruption in Iraq.
  For example, I proposed to add a resolved clause that stated it is 
not an abuse of the classification process to protect from unauthorized 
disclosure information contained in draft internal, unedited, 
unpublished and unapproved reports that reasonably may be expected to 
cause harm to the national defense or foreign relations of the United 
States.
  Like all the previously discussed additions I proposed, apparently 
this assessment went too far, which leads me to the unfortunate 
conclusion that the resolution we are considering today is not a 
substantive resolution intended to achieve a bipartisan consensus on 
the important issue of corruption in Iraq, which we all agree on. It is 
intended to politicize and is a political measure, put forth by the 
majority, with no intention of trying to reach constructive steps to 
improve U.S. anticorruption efforts.
  Is that enough for Members to oppose this press release masquerading 
as serious legislation? That is for each Member to decide. As for me, I 
am going to support the resolution, with those reservations.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to say it today that the 
conversation about corruption in Iraq, this isn't theoretical. It is 
not hypothetical. It is not just about numbers or statistics. 
Corruption in Iraq is real. It has a face. And, frankly, it is no 
secret to those Iraqis who are picking up their newspapers and their 
media outlets every day and finding out the corruption that is rampant 
there. So I think it is worthwhile just for a second to talk about the 
face of corruption in Iraq.
  This is Salam al-Maliki, the former Iraqi Minister of Transportation. 
He is also the Prime Minister's cousin. He was accused of abusing his 
official position to purchase real estate at a fraction of its value. 
But the Prime Minister issued an order barring, barring, his case from 
being referred to court.
  I want to now introduce you to Aiham Alsammarae. He was the Iraqi 
Minister of Electricity who was convicted in Iraq of the abuse of 
national funds; yet he escaped from the Green Zone with the help of 
U.S. contractors. He is now living, if you can believe it, in Chicago, 
running his own business and traveling around the world.
  Finally, this is Hazem Shaalan. He was the Iraqi Minister of Defense, 
accused of embezzling almost $1 billion that should have been spent on 
weapons and vehicles for the Iraqi Army. Iraqi courts reportedly have 
audiotapes of his deputy discussing payoffs to various officials. After 
his conviction, he also fled the country, and he is now living in 
Europe or the Middle East.
  Mr. Speaker, this is just the tip of the iceberg. But this 
administration doesn't think that the American people should be 
concerned or even know about this. By refusing to answer questions and 
retroactively classifying corruption reports, this administration has 
proved once again that they either don't trust the American people, or 
they know that their case for continuing this war is so weak that they 
have to obfuscate the facts on the ground.
  Now government contractors are getting into the game. Two weeks ago, 
Erik Prince, the CEO of Blackwater Security, refused to disclose to 
this committee his salary or the profit margins of his company, despite 
the fact that Blackwater makes 90 percent of its money off of U.S. 
taxpayers.
  This cannot stand, Mr. Speaker. I, for one, will never support 
another war funding authorization that doesn't provide for the 
redeployment of forces out of Iraq.
  But for those on this floor who do support this war, I plead with you 
to at least demand accountability for the billions of wasted dollars 
that we have thrown at the Iraqis. Do not stand here on the House floor 
telling us that we cannot afford to heal children throughout the United 
States of America if we aren't even asking questions and getting the 
appropriate documentation that we require on the billions of wasted 
dollars in Iraq.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and privilege to yield 1 
minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

                              {time}  1445

  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for yielding and 
also for his leadership as Chair of the committee for insisting that 
Congress exercise its constitutional responsibility of oversight of the 
executive branch.
  The classification process is meant to protect State's secrets, not 
to cover administration's failed policies. The American people and 
Congress deserve honest answers about the extent of corruption in the 
Iraqi Government, and to what extent corruption is fueling the 
insurgency and endangering our troops. We deserve to know if our troops 
are dying to support a corrupt regime propped up with United States tax 
dollars.
  But when the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform started to 
ask those questions, the State Department turned around and classified 
key sections of the report and testimony.
  In a democracy, we do not run away from facts. We do not classify 
information just because it is embarrassing. Unfortunately, this 
administration has shown an alarming lack of interest in the facts. 
This incident looks more like the same kind of stuff we have seen 
coming from this administration that really wants to continue to keep 
our young men and women in harm's way knowing full well this is a civil 
war that cannot be won militarily. I urge my colleagues to support 
transparency and accountability and condemn this abuse of the 
classification process and to support this resolution.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time to close.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to a very important member of our 
committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), for 3 minutes.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the chairman of 
the committee (Mr. Waxman) for his important work in this area and 
moving the committee to take a look at this.
  Look, the question is why does the Bush administration not want us to 
see this information about corruption in the Iraqi Government. One 
thing is clear, it is not that we are hiding something from the Iraqis 
that they don't already know. They know about the problem. In fact, we 
had Judge Radhi from the Iraqi Government who had been thrown out of 
his job because he was uncovering corruption testify.
  So if it is not the Iraqis we are trying to shield this information 
from, why is it? It is pretty clear that the administration doesn't 
want the American people to hear it. I think they are finally

[[Page 27295]]

 understanding that their position is untenable.
  Just yesterday the State Department sent a letter saying: ``There is 
no Department `directive' prohibiting officials from providing Congress 
any information relating to corruption in Iraq.'' That is just flatly 
false. In fact, we have a copy of the directive right here.
  Before the committee began its hearings, we asked for some State 
Department officials to come before the committee and talk about 
corruption issues. Well, the night before they came before the 
Oversight Committee, they were given this directive. Here is what it 
says. These are the areas which are red lined. That means these are the 
topics that they are not allowed to talk about in public: ``Broad 
statements/assessments which judge or characterize the quality of Iraqi 
governance or the ability/determination of the Iraqi Government to deal 
with corruption, including allegations that investigations were 
thwarted/stifled for political purposes,'' and it goes on.
  It is very clear that the State Department did not want their 
representatives coming before the committee to tell the truth about 
Iraqi corruption. And since then, when their officials actually came 
before the committee during the hearings, they refused to answer 
questions, the broadest kind of questions.
  Let me give you an example of questions that Ambassador Lawrence 
Butler, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern 
Affairs, said he couldn't answer: whether ``the Government of Iraq 
currently has the political will or capability to root out corruption 
within its government.''
  That's an important question for the American people.
  Also: ``Whether the Maliki government is working hard to improve the 
corruption situation so that he can unite his country.''
  Another question that was put to the State Department representative 
by the committee: Whether Prime Minister Maliki ``obstructed any 
anticorruption investigations in Iraq to protect his political 
allies.'' These are important questions to answer for the American 
people. These are questions that go to the heart of whether or not the 
policy in Iraq is succeeding or failing. They go to the heart of the 
question about whether the billions of dollars that taxpayers in this 
country have put into Iraq are being put to good use or whether they 
are squandered through waste, abuse, and corruption.
  This resolution simply says let's not play games here. Let's not play 
games with the truth. Let's not try to hide the facts from the American 
people. The people of Iraq know well the problems they have with 
respect to corruption. In fact, some of their leaders have put their 
lives on the line and have had to flee Iraq when the government said 
they were getting too close to the truth.
  But the people here need to know the truth, and the State Department 
and the Bush administration should not be using games to try and hide 
the facts and hide the truth from the American people on a very 
important issue.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying, Look, 
I think the State Department when this draft was leaked made a mistake 
in trying to reclassify this and put the genie back in the bottle. They 
should have just said this is unofficial, this has some problems, and 
gone ahead. I think that would have made it a lot easier for everybody.
  Secondly, let's get real. For the State Department to make official 
pronunciations about another government and particular ministries can 
have its diplomatic challenges, and I respect the right of the 
administration in some of these instances to refrain from saying what 
the majority would like them to say.
  Having said that, I think the State Department, when they go tell The 
Washington Post things that they wouldn't tell this committee, gives me 
some problems and puts me on the side of voting for this resolution 
rather than defending the State Department.
  I want to thank the chairman for his oversight hearings on corruption 
in Iraq. I think it is entirely appropriate. I think he is certainly 
within his bounds in the right to get the information from the 
Department of State, and I hope in the future they will be more 
cooperative in terms of turning over information to the committee 
instead of just turning it over to the newspapers with their own slant. 
That is not the way this works. We have a separation of powers. We are 
a separate branch of government, the legislative branch, and we want to 
be part of these discussions.
  Now, this resolution could have been about a strong bipartisan 
consensus calling attention to the corruption in Iraq and urging the 
State Department to step up its efforts to ferret out official 
corruption, but it is not.
  The resolution is just the latest, as I said before, it is the latest 
find in a search for proxy anti-war votes that the leadership on the 
other side has staged to feed an increasingly restive left wing of 
their party.
  Unable to prevail directly, they ignore regular order; they nibble 
around the edges with symbolic surrogates and sense of Congress 
resolutions.
  Having said that, I am going to vote for this resolution. It is not 
the resolution I would have put forward. We would like to have had more 
input. I hope as we move down the road on a number of war issues, we 
can work across the aisle to try to bring some consensus and real 
change regarding what is going on in Iraq, instead of putting up a 
document such as this, drafted by one party. But I urge support for the 
resolution. I thank the chairman for his oversight hearings.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I wish we had everyone sign off on every 
word in this resolution, but I think the Members ought to understand 
what this resolution does. It says to the State Department: Don't go 
with a double standard. You can say publicly positive things about the 
Iraqi Government, but you can't say things that are honest that may be 
negative about them, and we are not talking about specific statements, 
but general statements as well.
  Mr. Speaker, we are in a war in Iraq. Not everybody in this country 
is making a sacrifice for that war. But those who are being called to 
make a sacrifice are called to make the maximum sacrifice. They are 
giving up their lives potentially. The rest of us are paying through 
deficit spending billions and hundreds of billions of dollars.
  But if we are going to ask people to give up their lives in this war, 
what we owe them is to know the truth, not propaganda, but the truth 
about what this Iraqi Government is doing that may enable them to 
accomplish the goal that we have said we wanted to accomplish in Iraq, 
and that is to reach out, to bring about reconciliation in Iraq and a 
government that has credibility for its own people.
  If this Government in Iraq is so corrupt that our State Department 
won't even tell us about it, I have to wonder whether we can ask our 
brave men and women to risk and to give their lives to support that 
Iraqi Government.
  I urge passage of this resolution.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of H. Res. 734, expressing the sense of House of Representatives 
regarding the withholding of information relating to corruption in 
Iraq, introduced by my distinguished colleague from California, 
Representative Henry Waxman.  This important legislation recognizes the 
incongruities amongst reporting on the situation in Iraq and seeks to 
hold the Government accountable for the provision of and access to 
accurate and consistent information.
  This resolution expresses the sense of the House that the State 
Department is misusing the national security classification process to 
withhold from the American people information about widespread and 
increasing corruption within the Government of Iraq. This misuse 
includes the retroactive classification of documents and directions to 
employees not to answer questions in an open forum that calls for 
``broad statements/assessments which judge or characterize the quality 
of Iraqi governance or the ability/determination of the Iraqi 
government to deal with corruption, including allegations that 
investigations were thwarted/stifled for political reasons.''

[[Page 27296]]

  Mr. Speaker, the American people have poured vast amounts of 
resources and treasure into the misguided war in Iraq. According to the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, the U.S. is spending an 
estimated $10 billion per month in Iraq. This $10 billion a month 
translates into $329,670,330 per day, $13,736,264 per hour, $228,938 
per minute, and $3,816 per second. For this huge sum of money, we could 
have repaired the more than 70,000 bridges across America rated 
structurally deficient ($188 billion), potentially averting the tragedy 
that occurred August 1st in Minneapolis, MN. We could have rebuilt the 
levees in New Orleans ($50 billion), protecting that City from future 
hurricanes that could bring Katrina-like destruction upon the City. We 
could have provided all U.S. public safety officials with interoperable 
communication equipment ($10 billion), allowing them to effectively 
communicate in the event of an emergency, and we could have paid for 
screening all air cargo on passenger planes for the next 10 years ($3.6 
billion). And, we could have enrolled 1.4 million additional children 
in Head Start programs ($10 billion). Instead of funding increased 
death and destruction in Iraq, we could have spent hard-earned taxpayer 
dollars on important progress here at home.
  Given the enormous amount of resources involved, coupled with the 
catastrophic costs in human lives, we would certainly expect adequate 
oversight and management of U.S. funds and military supplies. We would 
expect clear records of exactly where those $10 billion a month is 
going, and to whom it is being given. And yet, the GAO reports that the 
Pentagon has lost track of over 190,000 weapons, given to Iraqis, 
particularly in 2004 and 2005. The report's author stated that the U.S. 
military does not know what happened to 30 percent of the weapons the 
United States distributed to Iraqi forces from 2004 through early this 
year as part of an effort to train and equip the troops. These weapons 
could be used to kill our American troops.
  Americans who are footing this enormous bill deserve real answers 
about where their money is going. Recent indications have suggested 
that it is not being well spent. The recently released Government 
Accountability Office report on Iraqi progress toward the 18 
legislative, economic, and security benchmarks indicated that only 
three of these benchmarks have been met by the Maliki government. 
Despite the surge, despite increasing U.S. military involvement, the 
Iraqi Government has not made substantial progress toward stabilizing 
their country. The over 3,750 U.S. casualties and the $3,816 per second 
we are spending in Iraq have not bought peace or security. Mr. Speaker, 
the time has long passed for the Iraqi Government to step up to take 
control of their own nation.
  However, as long as corruption remains endemic in Iraq, the 
government will find it difficult, if not impossible, to address the 
ongoing insurgency and to successfully achieve stability in Iraq. Mr. 
Speaker, leading experts have testified to the widespread corruption of 
the Iraqi Government, and that this problem continues to threaten our 
mission in Iraq as long as it's not effectively addressed. According to 
Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, 
corruption in Iraq is ``a second insurgency'' that ``stymies the 
construction and maintenance of Iraq's infrastructure, deprives people 
of goods and services, reduces confidence in public institutions, and 
potentially aids insurgent groups reportedly funded by graft derived 
from oil smuggling or embezzlement.'' The Comptroller General of the 
United States, David Walker, agreed, testifying 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.''
  The State Department must answer questions about the extent of 
corruption in the government of Iraq, and how this corruption is 
undermining both our governments' abilities to successfully end the 
insurgency. Instead, however, on September 25, 2007, the State 
Department instructed officials not to answer questions in an open 
setting that asks for ``broad statements/assessments which judge or 
characterize the quality of Iraqi governance or the ability/
determination of the Iraqi government to deal with corruption, 
including allegations that investigations were thwarted/stifled for 
political reasons.'' On top of this, the State Department retroactively 
classified portions of a report on Iraqi corruption previously released 
by Comptroller General Walker.
  In order to emerge successfully from our war in Iraq, we must be able 
to understand the situation on the ground and have access to documents 
and information that will allow our troops and fund to go where they 
are most needed. While the administration has put forward in a myriad 
of reports a sunny picture of the situation in Iraq emphasizing the 
progress of a few over the majority.
  This legislation is so significant because it addresses the 
corruption, within both the Iraqi and the United States Government, 
which have allowed for such a skewed perception of the reality in Iraq. 
This legislation illuminates the active work of the State Department in 
masking information on Iraq from public view. In order for this 
Congress to do its duty and protect its citizens, both at home and 
serving in our military overseas, it must be able to see what it is 
that its funds and soldiers are supporting overseas. Voices of dissent 
and honesty must be heard. We cannot continue to provide open-ended 
funding and protection for a government which has failed in its mission 
to be transparent and based in integrity.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve more. The men and women who 
have fallen in this war due to this endemic lack of information deserve 
more. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
legislation.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 734, a 
resolution that discloses the corruptive withholding of information in 
Iraq. The Administration cannot continue to hide corruption in the 
Iraqi Government. We cannot allow this abuse of the classification 
process. Americans have the right to know the truth about the situation 
in Iraq. The fact of the matter is, our military presence in Iraq is 
not making our country any safer. Instead, in my district alone, we 
have lost 13 brave young men to this war.
  The Iraq War is costing the American taxpayers ten billion dollars a 
month. With the money we have spent in Iraq, we could have hired an 
additional 7.8 million teachers. Americans should be outraged by this 
abuse of the system. Americans are paying for the war with their money 
and more importantly, the lives of their loved ones. I urge my 
colleagues to cast a vote for honesty and accountability by supporting 
this resolution.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, five years ago today, President George W. 
Bush signed into law the ``Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of 
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq,'' H.J. Res. 114.
  In the House, the bill passed on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-
133. I was one of 126 Democrats who voted against this grossly 
misguided bill, concluding that further diplomacy was needed over a 
U.S. military strike.
  And today--I remain unyielding in my stance that diplomacy, rather 
than military action is the answer to creating political reconciliation 
in Iraq.
  We must implement a diplomatic strategy that is framed upon the 
doorway of the U.N. and hinges on the Arab League, the Organization of 
the Islamic Conference, U.S. allies and the will of the Iraqi people.
  Mr. Speaker, as the Iraq Study Group concluded, a diplomatic strategy 
of gaining multilateral and bilateral support throughout the 
international community, especially with Iraq's neighboring states will 
help marginalize extremists and terrorists, promote U.S. values and 
interests, and improve America's global image.
  Unfortunately, to date, the President's new strategy is not a new 
strategy at all and continues the same failed plan that was utilized 
prior to the surge. His failed plan has resulted in over 3,800 U.S. 
soldiers being killed and over 27,000 American soldiers being wounded.
  Additionally, at least 150,000 of our service members have been 
victims of concussions, many of whom will suffer from life long 
injuries that have no medical or technological resolutions--including 
blindness, deafness, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain 
Injury. In the great State of Maryland alone, we continue to mourn the 
deaths of 70 service members and our prayers go out to over 392 brave 
men and women in uniform who suffer from wounds gained on the 
battlefield of Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, as we look back over the last five years we can only 
point to meager accomplishments while the overwhelming factor that 
shatters the forefront of our memory is the onslaught of bloodshed, 
further internal and external displacement of the Iraqi people, further 
corruption of the Iraqi government and further strained relations in 
the Middle East due in large part to the President's stubborn course of 
military operations in Iraq.
  In fact, corruption within the Iraqi government is as bad as ever and 
has become what has been described by Stuart Bowen, the U.S. State 
Department's Special Inspector for Reconstruction in Iraq as a `second 
insurgency' threatening to undermine U.S. and Iraqi efforts to build a 
stable democracy. As concluded by the Iraqi Commission for Public 
Integrity, corruption cases have increased by a staggering 70 percent 
in the last year, despite the Administration's efforts to quell these 
concerns by

[[Page 27297]]

layering them in bureaucratic red tape and retroactively labeling 
unwarranted information as being classified.
  As such, I congratulate my colleagues on passing H. Res. 734, which 
is a step in the right direction. Specifically, this legislation sends 
a strong message to the Administration that anti-democratic practices 
will not be tolerated. It also sends a message to the Iraqi Government 
that the U.S. Government will not sit idly by as Americans continue to 
sacrifice their lives at the expense of sustaining a mismanaged Iraqi 
Government.
  Considering the ongoing corruption in Iraq, it is clear that our 
military can not do what should be the job of ambassadors, foreign 
dignitaries and heads of state.
  As we look to the future, I hope that the Administration will shift 
from these failed policies in Iraq to a new policy that is 
fundamentally diplomatic and weighs heavily on the assistance of the 
international community.
  We owe this to our brave soldiers, their families and friends, the 
American people, and to the people of Iraq.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I voted against the war in Iraq in part 
because I feared the challenges that the United States would face 
installing a government that was both democratic and responsible. I am 
increasingly concerned about the recent reports concerning the 
corruption of the Maliki government in Iraq. The Bush Administration 
has told us that the controversial troop surge has led to political 
progress in Iraq. The unfortunate reality is that corruption has been 
prevalent throughout the Iraqi government, hindering political progress 
in the nation. Even worse, our own government has attempted to shield 
the American people from the disturbing reality of what is really going 
on in the Iraqi government. I am pleased that the House of 
Representatives is considering this resolution, which condemns the 
deceptive actions of the State Department.
  With over 450 billion dollars already appropriated to the Iraq War, 
as well as the painful death of over 3,800 of America's finest men and 
women and wounding of more than 28,000 more, this resolution is 
necessary to ensure that Congress and the American people understand 
what our sacrifices have accomplished in this war. By retroactively 
classifying documents that ridicule the Iraqi government, as well as 
refusing to answer questions before this body regarding the extent of 
corruption in Iraq, the State Department has set out to deceive not 
only the United States Congress, but also the American people who are 
fighting and funding this war. This resolution will ensure that the 
State Department understands that the truth, regardless of how dismal 
it may be, is more important than mere politics. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to join me in support of this resolution.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 741, the resolution is considered read 
and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on 
adoption of House Resolution 734 will be followed by 5-minute votes on 
the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2295, as amended, and the 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Con. Res. 182.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 395, 
nays 21, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 969]

                               YEAS--395

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--21

     Broun (GA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Conaway
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Gingrey
     Hall (TX)
     Hunter
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Miller, Gary
     Neugebauer
     Pence
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Sali
     Thornberry

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Blunt
     Boehner
     Carson
     Clyburn
     Costa
     Cubin
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Peterson (PA)
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Weller
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California and Mr. HALL of Texas changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. FRANKS of Arizona, KLINE of Minnesota, BARRETT of South 
Carolina, SULLIVAN, BILBRAY, HASTERT, SHADEGG, and Mrs. BLACKBURN 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''

[[Page 27298]]

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 969, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________