ALS Registry Act

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. Speaker, I would be happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, the former chairman of the committee (Mr. Burton).

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).

I would like to inquire as to how much time I have.

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. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Let me say that who speaks for the State Department at certain times and how nuanced the statement is going to be is very important in diplomatic jargon in terms of what its meaning is. I think

that was one of the difficulties they had at that time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, let me just add that official diplomatic statements, even under oath in congressional testimony, critical of foreign governments, have consequences. Criticizing foreign governments through official statements of our government, when you are trying to get them to comply with other things, have consequences. Criticizing specific ministries, which were some of the questions asked, have consequences within a fragile political framework of the Iraqi current coalitions, and, for one reason or another, the State Department felt that, at least in an open forum, they felt constrained to make appropriate statements.

However, I think it is clear from the amount of testimony and the volume of testimony and the substance of the testimony that we have heard that there has been corruption in Iraq for a long time. It continues, it will probably continue after we leave, and it is something that this Congress and the American people need to know about, and we can address it here on the House floor.

This resolution was introduced dealing with corruption in Iraq and the State Department's attempts to cover up the extent of the corruption, or, I should say, the alleged attempts. This quotes various witnesses that have appeared before our committee over the last several years to discuss the affairs of Iraq.

Along with the chairman, I participated in those hearings, too, and I listened to what the witnesses had to say, and I share his concern about the extent of corruption in Iraq, and I hope every Member does. But I am concerned about the way that the statements are being portrayed, the statements by the panels of expert witnesses who appeared before our committee, because in this resolution, it only paints half the picture.

I offered to work with the chairman to come up with a resolution that in my judgment paints a more complete picture of the extent of corruption in Iraq, but the offer wasn't accepted. I then, in good faith, filed an amendment with the Rules Committee that accepted basically the resolution that was presented by the chairman but added some additional whereas and resolved clauses that I thought provided a more accurate, bipartisan perspective on the extent of corruption in Iraq.

For example, the chairman's resolution quotes Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction, as stating before the committee on October 4 that the ``rising tide of corruption in Iraq stymies the construction and maintenance of Iraq's infrastructure, deprives people of goods and services, reduces confidence in public institutions, and potentially aides insurgent groups reportedly funded by graft derived from oil smuggling or embezzlement.''

I concur with the chairman's concerns about this particular statement by Mr. Bowen and included the same statement in the amendments that we proposed. But I also added an additional quote made by Mr. Bowen at the hearing that says, ``Iraq has a history of corruption'' and ``the United States did not bring corruption to Iraq, and it will not be gone whenever we leave.''

He said that, but apparently that proposed addition didn't fit the theme of what the majority is trying to do this week.

Additionally, the chairman's resolution quotes David Walker, the well-respected Comptroller General of the United States, as stating before our committee that ``widespread corruption undermines efforts to develop the government's capacity by robbing it of needed resources, some of which are used to fund the insurgency.''

I concur with the chairman's concerns about that statement made by Mr. Walker, something we want the world to know, Congress should be aware of. I included the same statement in the amendments that I proposed. But I also added an additional quote by General Walker at the hearing that says, ``none of us should underestimate the challenges of establishing strong and transparent government institutions in the wake of a dictatorship where corruption was woven into the very fabric of governing. And none of us should underestimate the challenge of rooting out corruption in a combat zone, even one where violence is diminishing as we have seen over the past 6 months.''

Apparently this proposed addition also failed to fit the majority's tidy little box for discussion this week.

Another example, the resolution highlights the fact that the State Department instructed officials not to answer certain questions. My amendment included the same language as the chairman's but added an additional whereas to acknowledge the fact that the State Department counsel, concerned about the specific assessments regarding the government's capacities

of Iraq Ministries and Ministers made in an open setting, and that these statements could affect the United States' bilateral relationship with the Government of Iraq and could put in danger the lives of Americans, of our allies, repeatedly offered to make United States Government officials and employees available to respond to 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. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time to close.

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. President, the Senate will be in a period of morning business for 3 hours this morning. The reason for the inordinate amount of time is that--I will make a presentation in a little bit to get this started--we have more than 100 pieces of legislation that are held up, legislation that could move so very quickly, in a matter of minutes. But we cannot do that because there are Republican holds on these bills.

So we are going to go through our period of time this morning, asking consent to move to these bills. We hope some of them will pass. Some of them we should get done.

The leading cause of death in 20 States in the United States for children under age 14 is getting caught in the drains of swimming pools. It has been somewhat noted because John Edwards had one of the first legal cases in that regard.

Alaska, where you would not think there are a lot of swimming pools, or at least I would not, but there obviously are lots of swimming pools, that is the leading cause of death in Alaska for children.

We have a hold on that bill. It passed the House with three dissenting votes, 418 to 3. We cannot pass that. There are children dying while we are not able to proceed on something such as that. There are over 100 issues similar to that. It is not right. So if people wonder why we are spending so much time, that is the reason. Maybe we will get some of these people who are on the other side of the aisle who object to this to come, rather than these hidden holds, and speak.

It is not good for the body. If there are problems with a piece of legislation, that is one thing. But take that one case as an example. Following morning business, we will conduct two rollcall votes in relation to the two Gregg amendments. Other amendments will be debated following the Gregg votes and more rollcall votes will occur through the day and into the evening.

I would like to commend Senators Harkin and Chambliss for their work they have accomplished in getting an agreement with respect to the amendments. As to the list of amendments right now, all 20 Republican amendments have been offered; the Democrats have offered 8 or 9.

The work they have done in the last few days I think has been exemplary. While they were successful in getting agreements on these amendments, other amendments will still need to be debated and voted on or accepted by the two managers.

As the year comes to a close, and the first year of the 110th Congress winds down, there is no doubt, if we continue in the current direction, this will be known as the Congress of Republican obstruction.

Already, in 1 year, Republicans have arrived at the all-time obstruction record for a full 2-year session. What we are seeing this year from Republicans is not ordinary obstruction, it is obstruction on steroids. It is terribly damaging to the American people. I do not question the right of Republicans to block bills, in fact, block bill after bill; that is how the Senate has worked. And we all play by the same rules. But because you have the right does not make it right.

On a daily basis, Republican Senators talk about the lack of progress this year. For all we have done, why have we not done more, they say. The answer is obstruction, Republican obstruction. It is disingenuous for Republicans to complain about a lack of progress and then make a concerted effort to block change----

Obstruction of the prescription drug bill, to make medicines more affordable. We have been able to accomplish a lot, but it has been difficult when we have had to file about 60 cloture petitions.

We have been able to do some good things with the minimum wage, 9/11 Commission recommendations, the landmark ethics and lobbying reform, we have done some good work with mine resistant combat vehicles, we have given the National Guard equipment they need, we have stepped in and looked at the plight of American veterans based on the Walter Reed scandal.

We have revitalized the Gulf Coast after Katrina, disaster relief for small business and farmers, Western wildfire relief. We have looked into the scandal relating to the U.S. attorneys. We passed legislation to help correct that. We have passed the WRDA, Water Resources Development Act, and a competitiveness bill led by Senators Bingaman and Alexander, we have been able to get that done.

We have done the most significant change to college education since the GI Bill of Rights. We have been able to do some good things regarding the Internet, keeping the Internet tax free, expanding Head Start. We have done some good things.

But we have been stopped from doing other important things. The prescription drug bill is a perfect example. As we speak, companies can go negotiate for lower priced drugs for their employees. The Veterans' Administration can negotiate for lower prices for veterans but Medicare cannot. There is a prohibition that Medicare cannot negotiate for lower priced drugs. That should be changed. We tried to change it. It was blocked; obstruction of our efforts to change the course in Iraq; obstruction of our efforts to pass an AMT fix in a fiscally responsible way; obstruction of our FHA bill, a bill that President Bush has called upon us to pass that would help Americans save their homes from foreclosure.

These are a few of the well-known examples. My Democratic colleagues and I this morning are going to talk about some of the lesser known priorities Republicans have blocked. These bills might not make headlines, but they will make a difference in people's lives, such as the swimming pool drains I talked about.

All these bills we will seek to pass today will make our country stronger. Every single one of them has fallen victim to Republican obstruction. There are no serious complaints about the bills which we seek to pass this morning, at least I do not think so. Many of them have already more than 50 cosponsors, Democrats and Republicans--we acknowledge mostly Democrats but Democrats and Republicans.

Many have already been overwhelmingly passed by the House of Representatives and could be sent to the President's desk this afternoon. This morning's bills, though, are the tip of the iceberg. We can come to the floor tomorrow or the next day and days after that and seek action on bills similar to these that we are going to talk about.

So we hope in the coming hours, the Republican minority will call off their needless holds, call off their obstruction, call off their political posturing and start working with us to make life better for the American people.

As I indicated, a number of my colleagues will follow. What I am going to talk about now, I am going to talk about the ALS registry-- ALS, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, the Lou Gehrig's disease, this great first baseman for the New York Yankees who was a man of iron who could not overcome this disease.

Similar to all people who get this disease, from the time it is discovered until you die is an average of 18 months. We have all had friends and relatives who have suffered and died from this disease. It is caused by a degeneration of the nerve cells that control voluntary muscle, which causes muscle weakness and atrophy. It is nearly always fatal. It may give victims, as I have indicated, a short time to live.

Once in a while you find someone who lives several years, and that is a blessing in their lives. Early this year, a woman named Kathie Barrett and her husband Martin traveled to Washington, DC, from Sparks, NV, to advocate on behalf of the ALS registry.

What is a registry? It is the first step to solve the problems of disease. Many years ago, they developed a cancer registry. I was involved in setting up one for a disease called interstitial cystitis. It is a disease that afflicts mostly women; 90 percent of the people who

have the disease are women. It is a bladder disease that is tremendously debilitating. I had three women visit me in my Las Vegas office. They did not want to be there. They were there out of desperation. They all had this disease, which was thought for many years to be psychosomatic.

It is best described as shoving slivers of glass up and down one's bladder. What was the first thing we had to do? We developed a registry. As a result of that, 40 percent of the people who have this disease are no longer suffering. They are symptom free.

Medicine was developed. It does not take care of everyone, but because of the registry, they were able to determine how people are affected, where they are affected, in different parts of the country, and how different medicines work. That is what we are trying to do here, develop, on behalf of Lou Gehrig's disease, a registry.

Kathie was diagnosed with this disease in May of 2002. She is still alive, which is a miracle. Despite having a breathing capacity of about 60 percent of normal, with considerable muscle loss in her neck and back, she made the long trip from Sparks, 2,600 miles. She and her husband made that trip because they believe passage of this registry is essential to the search for a cure for this devastating illness.

Every year about 6,000 people learn they have this disease, for which there is no cure, and only one specific FDA-approved drug. That drug works on 20 percent of the patients, and even for them, it extends life for usually less than a year. So for a number of reasons, ALS has proven particularly difficult for scientists and doctors to make progress upon.

One of the reasons is there is not a centralized place for data collected on the disease. Right now, that is the case. There is only a patchwork of data about ALS available to researchers. So this legislation, the ALS Registry Act, will do something that is both simple and crucial. It would create an ALS registry at the Centers for Disease Control to help arm our Nation's researchers and clinicians with the tools and information they need to make progress in the fight against this dread disease.

The data made available by a registry will potentially allow scientists to identify causes of the disease and maybe even lead to the discovery of a new treatment, a cure for ALS or even a way to prevent the disease in the first place.

This may not lead to a cure overnight, but it will give those who suffer reason for hope, real scientific hope. If you are looking for bipartisanship, look no further. The House recently passed a similar measure, H.R. 2295, by a vote of 411 to 3. How often does anything pass the House by such a large margin?

Before the Thanksgiving recess, the HELP Committee in the Senate followed suit by reporting the ALS Registry Act unanimously. What is more, two-thirds of the Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, are cosponsors. I am appreciative of the work of my Republican colleagues, Senators Warner and Enzi, as well, of course, Senator Kennedy, who is always out front on these issues.

Unfortunately, despite the nearly unanimous support of the House of Representatives, the unanimous committee vote, and the overwhelming support of 67 cosponsors, we have objections--all over here, of course. For Kathie and Martin Barrett of Sparks and many thousands just like them, hope remains unfulfilled. Why has this happened? This crucial bill has been subjected to Republican holds. While some Republicans stand in the way, people's lives hang in the balance. Let's not forget the average life expectancy for an individual with this disease, after it is diagnosed, is 18 months, a year and a half. This is not a moment when we should stall. We don't have a moment to spare. We should send this bill to the President today. I ask my Republicans, please end their holds, end this senseless obstruction. The eyes of the Barretts and tens of thousands of Americans suffering are upon us. Let's honor their courage and grace by fulfilling their hope for a cure.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the ALS bill that is now before the Senate be read three times, passed, and any statements related thereto be printed in the Record at the appropriate place.

Mr. President, isn't this something? Would I modify my request for the Barretts from Sparks to get billions of dollars for the troops in Iraq? The answer is no. We have just appropriated $470 billion, and there will be appropriate measures before we leave here to direct, if the Senate wills, funding for the troops. I think the American people should see this. Would I modify my request to allow for more money for the war in Iraq at this time? The answer is no. This is an issue dealing with Lou Gehrig's disease, not a debate on the war in Iraq. It deals with people who are sick.

I had in my office last night two marines. One of them lost both his legs, a wonderful young man, 21 years old. With him was a man who had just gotten out of bed to come to my office. He was on his fourth tour of duty before he got blown up in Iraq. We care about those people in Iraq. We care about them a lot. That is why we appropriated $470 billion for the military. That is why we are well aware of the need to take a look at funding for more in Iraq. We have given the troops everything they have needed. We, the Democrats, have given them more than the President has requested, with money for MRAPs, for veterans coming home. I hope everyone sees this for what it is.

Will I agree to modify my request to allow for more money for Iraq at this time? The answer is no.

Mr. President, the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Gates, told all of us the Wednesday before we broke for Thanksgiving that the troops would be fine--the Army until the first of March, the Marines until the middle of March. That is what he told us. I believe him. I have talked to him since then. He has confirmed that. I know there is spin from the White House that they are going to start laying people off. Let's be realistic.

We have a request before the Senate to allow a registry to be created so we can try to find a cure for a dread disease. We are going to be out of here hopefully in a few days, hopefully a week or 10 days. We are going to complete the funding for our country prior to that time. Part of that consideration--I have spoken to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--is what do we do about the President's request, his $196 billion request for more money for Iraq. We have to take a look at that. We want to take a look at that.

I am concerned that we fund the Government. We don't want a Government shutdown. Maybe some people in the White House would like that. We don't want a Government shutdown. We are going to work very hard to accomplish that.

Today, there are going to be a number of requests for pieces of legislation that are important. I believe people with Lou Gehrig's disease deserve a few minutes of our time today. That is what I asked that we pass. It was objected to. I understand that, but that is really too bad. That is legislation creating a registry so people can try to find out what causes this disease,

where the disease occurs in our country. It was objected to. That is too bad.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration is hiding the truth while seeking hundreds of billions of dollars and placing our troops in danger, and we cannot allow this to happen.

We need answers to some very important questions: How corrupt is the Maliki government? Are top officials in Iraq stealing billions of dollars to fund insurgents who are attacking and killing our troops? Is corruption undermining the chances for political reconciliation?

Secretary of State Rice says she will answer these questions only on one condition: every Member of Congress who hears the answers has to keep the answers secret. Well, that's an outrageous abuse of the classification system.

Earlier this month, the former head of the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity, Judge Radhi, testified before the Oversight Committee. He told us that corrupt Iraqi officials had stolen a staggering $18 billion and used part of that money to fund terrorists. He told us that when he tried to track down who was responsible, well, 31 of his investigators were brutally assassinated, and his own family living in the Green Zone was targeted twice with rocket attacks. And he gave us copies of secret orders that Prime Minister Maliki personally issued to protect his allies, including his own cousin, from corruption investigations and prosecutions.

Judge Radhi, Special Inspector General Stuart Bowen and Comptroller General David Walker all told us that

corruption is so entrenched in Iraq that it is jeopardizing our troops and our mission. But when we asked the State Department for unclassified documents about the extent of corruption in the Maliki government, Secretary Rice retroactively classified them. And when we asked the embassy officials when they knew about corruption, she ordered them not to respond.

Secretary Rice has made public statements praising the anticorruption efforts of the Maliki government, and he, himself, she praised; and she even praised the corrupt Interior Ministry. But when we asked embassy officials in Iraq whether her public statements were accurate, they said they were not allowed to respond unless we agreed to keep their answers secret.

Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago, abusive classified information got us into this war. It's time for these abuses to end, and that's why we ask all Members to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. 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. Speaker, I want to point out that Mr. Burton, who was chairman of our committee, issued thousands of subpoenas. He received millions of pages of documents. He had hundreds of hours of depositions. He conducted an investigation that has been widely regarded as irresponsible and reckless.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland to speak on this resolution.

Mr. 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. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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. 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. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to a very important member of our committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), for 3 minutes.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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

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. Speaker, the fundamental issue before us on this resolution is whether or not this institution, the Congress, is going to absolutely carry out its oversight responsibilities and demand that the executive branch provide to us materials we need to make reasonable determinations as to whether or not there is an extent of corruption in Iraq with respect to what is going on there, but also whether or

not our State Department and other agencies are doing all they should do to build up the capacity of the Iraqi Government to be able to combat corruption.

In December 2006, and again in July of 2007, the United States Embassy in Iraq produced two reports that weighed on those issues, corruption in the Iraqi Government, and would have shown us some capacity of whether or not the United States was doing enough about it. They were marked ``sensitive but unclassified.'' And they were widely distributed within the United States Government and they were even posted on the Internet.

In September, the Oversight Committee requested copies of those two documents. But rather than provide them in their unclassified form, the State Department decided to retroactively classify them, in essence, keeping them from public view or from public debate.

The State Department classified these documents only after the committee requested that they be produced. And they gave this task to an official who told the committee he had never in his life been requested to review for classification before.

Incredibly, the State Department then retroactively also classified key portions of a Government Accountability Office report that was issued to the Oversight Committee at a public hearing on October 4. Now, David Walker, the Comptroller General, testified in open session that this Government Accountability Office report addressed corruption in Iraq and the failure of the United States agencies to properly support capacity-building efforts in Iraqi ministries. This is not 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.