[Congressional Record: October 16, 2007 (House)]
[Page H11555-H11563]
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.
____________________
[Congressional Record: October 16, 2007 (House)]
[Page H11576-H11586]
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,
[[Page H11577]]
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 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
[[Page H11578]]
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 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
[[Page H11579]]
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
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.
[[Page H11580]]
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. 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
[[Page H11581]]
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, 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
[[Page H11582]]
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 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
[[Page H11583]]
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 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 H11584]]
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.''
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
[[Page H11585]]
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. 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
[[Page H11586]]
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.''
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.''
____________________
