Tom Davis

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.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mrs. Jeanie Bell Winslow on the occasion of her retirement after 40 years of dedicated public service to the Federal Government.

Mrs. Winslow began her career in federal service as a travel agent for the United States Army Audit Agency, where she was responsible for arranging official passenger travel, both domestic and international. In 1981, she spent 2 years at the Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC) learning about all modes of transportation as an intern for the Department of Army. After her internship, she was assigned to the Directorate of Personal Property at the MTMC for whom she managed military/industry symposiums and councils, and played a key role in responding to White House and congressional inquiries. While at the MTMC, Mrs. Winslow was also responsible for managing standard agreements with airline, air taxi and rental car companies who provide service to the Department of Defense. She managed the Federal Government's rental car program and represented the MTMS on various General Services Administration panels that sought to evaluate bids for the city-pair contract.

Since joining the Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC), Mrs. Winslow has managed their annual training symposium and Quality Award and Excellence in Transportation Awards Program, as well as legislative affairs and trade publications. As a result of her efforts, the SDDC's award-winning Translog magazine has doubled in issue size to 44 pages. Mrs. Winslow will retire as the Acting Director of the Command Affairs Office at the SDDC.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to Jeanie Bell Winslow for her years of service and dedication to the Federal Government. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mrs. Winslow on her retirement and wishing her the best of luck in all future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1124, legislation I introduced earlier this year to extend the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Program through 2012.

This past May, the House approved the bill overwhelmingly and sent it to the Senate. Last month, after adding an amendment to exclude families who make more than $1 million a year from participating in the program, the Senate passed the bill 96-0. The amended legislation is now pending before the House. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Prior to the creation of this program in 1999, residents of the Nation's capital did not have the luxury afforded to high school graduates everywhere else in the country, the chance to attend public colleges and universities at in-State tuition rates. This program levels the playing field by allowing District graduates to attend public colleges and universities at in-State tuition rates.

The success of the Tuition Assistance Program is overwhelming and indisputable. College enrollment of public high school graduates in the District has doubled in the 7 years since the program was created from 30 percent to 60 percent, with 5,300 District graduates currently participating in the program. Few, if any other, federally funded initiatives can claim this level of success.

The program has always received broad bipartisan support. Both Houses of Congress unanimously passed authorizing legislation for the program in 1999, and again in 2005. And the President has always supported full funding for the program in his annual budget request to Congress.

The proven success of the program and the District's unique status make our choice simple. Congress should continue to support this legislation to provide higher education opportunities to high school graduates in the Nation's capital. I can't tell you how many parents told me, ``We would have moved to the suburbs if the program didn't exist.''

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support a level playing field for high school graduates in the District. It's the right thing to do; it's the smart thing to do.

I would also, at this point, like to thank, on the Republican staff, Mason Allinger, Howard Denes and David Marin for their hard work in bringing it to this moment.

I've traveled a long road with the District of Columbia Access Act, from March 1, 1999, when it was introduced, until the present day.

That road took us through the predecessor subcommittee that I chaired at the time, to the full Government Reform Committee, to the House and Senate floor, and then to the White House, where then-President Clinton signed the measure on November 12, 1999.

In all of its legislative approvals the College Access Act, now known as the Tuition Assistance Grant Program, was passed unanimously, by voice vote. President Clinton had included sufficient money in his Budget Submission that year, and a Statement of Administration Policy endorsed the approach we had taken in authorizing use of those funds.

I am deeply proud of our hard, bipartisan effort in enacting this measure and in re-authorizing it 2 years ago.

My thanks to Eleanor Holmes Norton, who was ranking member of the District of Columbia Subcommittee in 1999, and who has worked tirelessly to enhance this legislation ever since.

I would also like to thank my then-counterpart in the Senate, George Voinovich, for his continuing support, and Senators Warner and Durbin, for working with us to improve this legislation.

The 5-year re-authorizing legislation before you today will enable District residents to continue to attend colleges and universities at in-state rates. President Bush, in his Budget Submission for fiscal year 2008, has included sufficient funds to make this happen.

Then-Mayor Anthony Williams, and now D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty, have both strongly supported this law as being very important for District high school graduates. As documented to this subcommittee, the graduation rate for public school students in the city has doubled since this law went into effect. We have incentivized staying in school.

This law is a classic ``leveling of the playing field''. No city or county in the country is required to supplement its in-state rate with local funds, and neither should the taxpayers in the Nation's capital be saddled with this burden. Neither should the city be penalized for its own success in administering this program.

Back on March 4, 1999, when I introduced this bill, I went to nearby Eastern High School with Ms. Norton. I was deeply moved by the reaction of the students. I will never forget how so many took our hands, looked into our eyes, and thanked us for introducing the original bill.

I'm proud of all we have been able to do in the Nation's capital since 1995, when the city was literally bankrupt. Economic development, public safety, the real estate market, and so many other aspects of city life have changed for the better.

But nothing has given me more satisfaction than working to improve educational opportunity. Fighting for equal educational opportunity is one of the reasons I entered public life.

We need a healthy city to have a healthy Washington region.

Re-authorizing this law, which has expanded higher educational choices, is an enormous leap forward.

It is a strong part of our vision for the future.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Let me thank my colleague from Illinois for helping to shepherd this through today, and of course my friend from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) who has been there from the beginning. This legislation at the very beginning had some tough sledding moving it through both Houses of the Congress. And also our thanks to Don Graham, who is really the father of this. The idea originated with him and he brought it to our attention early on in our congressional careers, and we are able to move it forward. But he brought a lot of bipartisan support from the business community to bear.

I urge adoption of the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.