David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. And I would say to my good friend from New York that I think he's taken out of context my use of the term ``sob story.'' Now, as I said, I am a strong proponent of trade adjustment assistance and want to do everything that I possibly can to ensure that workers who have been negatively impacted by any kind of trade agreement are, in fact, able to receive the training and the benefits that can help them improve their standard of living and their quality of life. But, Madam Speaker, when I was using the term ``sob story,'' what I was talking about is the fact that time and time again we have demands made on those job creators out there, demands made of job creators which undermine their ability to create jobs and opportunities for people so that they can succeed. And then we, unfortunately, are faced with complaints coming from those people who are negatively impacted by the demands of policies that they have made to increase the regulatory burden, to increase the tax burden, which prevents those who are struggling to create new opportunities for U.S. workers from having an opportunity. It looks like my friend would like me to yield to him. I am happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for yielding me time. I thank Mr. Clay for his management of this measure. And I join with my colleagues, Ms. Lofgren and the Republicans who have joined as cosponsors of this very important resolution. A week ago at this time, Mr. Speaker, there were no fewer than 14 major fires with hundreds of thousands of acres on fire in Southern California. As we know, nearly 2,000 homes were destroyed in those fires and we went through a number of very, very challenging days through last week. And while we still have fires raging, we have had a great deal of success. We have had a great deal of success in the aftermath of these fires due to the stellar leadership provided by Governor Schwarzenegger; by President Bush; and our Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff; the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, David Paulison; and a wide range of other local governments involved. And I have to say the leadership of our congressional delegation has really been a great example. We are joined on the floor here by my friend from San Diego (Mr. Bilbray) whose district was impacted. And last Thursday I had the privilege of traveling with our colleagues, Senator Feinstein, and I see Congressman Filner is here as well from San Diego, and others who joined with the members of the San Diego delegation who were there to have the chance to see firsthand the devastation that was caused by these fires. Brian Bilbray is someone who has, time and time again, stepped up to the plate to deal with challenges that he has faced in the San Diego area, and what we saw last Thursday was another example. He was able to take the Governor of California and the President of the United States to meet individually with those who had been victimized by the fires and for all of us to join with Mr. Filner and Mrs. Davis and Mr. Issa and Mr. Hunter in talking to those firefighters who have come from all over, not just the State of California but from around the country. Now, Mr. Speaker, the State of California is the State that is best equipped to deal with the disaster of fires. And I say that because California has this very unique structure known as a Unified Command. Now, what that consists of is, rather than having these disparate firefighting organizations come into an area and take on the issue of dealing with fire, the Unified Command means that the highest ranking fire official, the fire chief in a particular area that knows that county, with the canyons and the valleys and the challenges geographically that they face, is there to provide the direction and the leadership. And that is the reason, Mr. Speaker, that we have had such success within the past week in dealing with what was described by a 36-year veteran battalion chief from San Diego as the worst fire that he has ever seen in California's history. I also want to say that I express appreciation to our colleagues from all across the country. We have, again, firefighters who came from around California and around the country; and I know it was in large part due to the encouragement that our bipartisan Congress, that Members on both sides of the aisle of the Congress, from both the House and the Senate, have provided in encouraging these courageous firefighters to come forward and provide the assistance necessary. There are going to be challenging days ahead, as my colleague, Ms. Lofgren, said, Mr. Speaker. We obviously are going to have to deal with continued fighting of the fires and also rebuilding. And there also will be, I believe, a very important debate as we look at the days and weeks and months ahead, and I'm talking about the challenge we face in dealing with disasters. We know that fire is just one of the multifarious disasters that we deal with in California. There are disasters that hit other parts of the country. I think we need to have a debate on the role that the Federal Government plays in dealing with these disasters. I have talked with a number of people who are interested in now getting involved, the Center for Strategic International Studies, John Hamre there, I've talked to Director Paulison about this. We have, again, a great deal of work, but at this time, this resolution is designed to focus on the fires in California and express our appreciation for the support that has been provided, and also our thoughts and prayers for those who have been victimized by this. So, Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I thank all those who have been involved in supporting this resolution.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to express on behalf of California's congressional delegation our appreciation to our colleagues here in the House of Representatives and to the administration, President Bush and Secretary Chertoff and Director Paulison and others in the administration who are at this moment on the ground in Southern California, and to the courageous firefighters and Governor Schwarzenegger and his entire team for all that is being done to deal with what has been described by one battalion chief in San Diego, California, as the worst fire that the State has ever faced. Last night, Brian Williams of NBC News said that the fact that nearly a million people have been evacuated from their homes means that this is the largest movement of people since the Civil War. We are going to go through some very difficult and challenging days ahead, and to the firefighters, to those who have suffered losses, our thoughts and prayers are with you. And again my appreciation to our colleagues who represent States across this country, North Carolina, Wyoming, Arizona, Idaho, States all across this country, Mr. Speaker, that have stepped up to the plate to help us. I also want to express my appreciation to Speaker Pelosi as well.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Dallas for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I come to the well for the exact same reason that our California colleague, the distinguished Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, has taken time, and that is to talk about what many have described as probably the worst fire that has ever hit Southern California. I was just talking to the dean of our delegation, Mr. Lewis, who is going to be returning to California. I know a number of our colleagues have gone now. He represents the Lake Arrowhead area where Governor Schwarzenegger and other elected officials are looking at this situation. As the Speaker pointed out, 365,000 people have been evacuated from their homes, and literally hundreds of thousands of acres have been burned. And Mr. Lewis just reminded me that one of the things that we can be extraordinarily grateful for is that we have been able to learn from previous fires how to deal with this. For example, we've had an increase in the number of what are known as the Mobile Airborne Firefighting System aircraft, the MAFS, which are going to be coming from other States. And we, as Californians, are very grateful for the fact that other States are working with us to deal with California's challenge in this time of need. There are other environmental issues with which we've had to contend, the bark beetle that Mr. Lewis just mentioned, and making sure that we are able to go in and clean up areas which create the potential for fire. And so we've learned a lot from the horrible circumstances that we have faced in the past. And I'm convinced, Mr. Speaker that we will, in fact, learn from this tragedy as well. Our thoughts and prayers are with those who have lost their homes. And if there is any kind of silver lining, when you think about the fact that 365,000 people have been evacuated, hundreds of thousands of acres, countless structures in the hundreds have been obliterated, and yet the report now is that there is only one loss of life. And obviously there are a number of firefighters who have been injured. According to a report I just saw on the television, another 25 individuals have been injured, and our thoughts and prayers are with them. But we are very grateful for those who have stepped up. Governor Schwarzenegger just, Mr. Speaker, talked about the fact that at this time of need, calling on those in the grocer industry and a wide range of others coming in and providing water, diapers, baby formula, other foodstuffs that are necessary for those who have been evacuated and those who are engaged in firefighting is something that has really been remarkable, as our Governor just said. And, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that one of the things that I have been struck with is that, while some people try to make things like this partisan, we are coming together as a State delegation to deal with this. As I said, a number of our colleagues have already gone to California. I know some members of the San Diego delegation, because that area has been hit particularly hard, have already gone. So, Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to express my appreciation to those who are on the front lines and to say, as our Governor has, again, we have all come together to try to provide assistance, and the one thing we need to do now is pray for an improvement in both the wind and create the potential for some rain, if that's at all possible, to help provide some kind of relief, and to again state that at this time of disaster we want every level of government as well as individuals to continue to work together, and I am convinced that we will be able to.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pasco for yielding and congratulate the Hastings cousins for their management of this very, very important measure. Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon eight of our colleagues sat before the dais of the Rules Committee with 27 different proposed amendments that they wanted to offer to improve this very important measure, to work in a bipartisan way to improve it. Before they were able to utter their first words, they were told in response to a question that came from our friend from Pasco, Mr. Hastings, that this was going to be a closed rule. Now, Mr. Speaker, a closed rule means that no amendment is offered. No alternative proposal is allowed at all. We simply get the measure that is before us, and that is it. Now, that's when there were 27 different amendments that were proposed and, as I said, eight Members waiting to offer and discuss their ideas. They were completely shut out from that. Now, Mr. Speaker, it saddens me to report to this House that we, today, have achieved something that is not great for this institution. As of today, Mr. Speaker, in the 110th Congress, we have had more closed rules in a single session of the United States House of Representatives than we have in the 218-year history of this great institution. The sad thing about that, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that we were promised something much different, and this bill is critically important for our Nation's security. One of the very thoughtful proposals to come forward made great sense. It's the idea of saying that when the government asked the private sector to help us work to interdict those communications taking place among people who are trying to kill us, terrorists who are trying to kill us, we should allow them to do that. We should allow them to have immunity from the threat of prosecution if that, in fact, is being utilized. But unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have failed to allow that proposal, for those people who were asked by the government to help us win the global war on terror, to make sure that Osama bin Laden and other terrorists do not have the potential to kill us. And now what we've been told, and I heard countless Democrats say, oh, these people in the telecommunications industry, they've got enough money, they're making enough money, let them stand on their own. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is just plain wrong, and we, unfortunately, with this rule, are not even allowed a chance to debate that, which, to me, is absolutely outrageous. What we have before us, Mr. Speaker, is a closed rule on a bad bill that can't become law. Tragically, that's a pattern that we have been facing for a while. The exact same thing has happened on the bill that we're going to be voting after it was sent here 2 weeks ago on SCHIP legislation. We're going to be voting on that tomorrow. So, Mr. Speaker, let me just say again, this is a closed rule on a bad bill that can't become law. We've got to defeat this rule. We've got to make sure that those people who are working to keep this country safe have all the tools necessary to make that happen.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. And the gentleman from Vermont has no further speakers; is that correct, Madam Speaker?

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.

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 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. 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 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. 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. 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

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 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. 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?

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 5 minutes to my friend from Bridgeport (Mr. Shays).

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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 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. 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. 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.

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.

Mr. DREIER. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Dallas for yielding, and I want to buttress his argument, which is a very clear one. Obviously, we want to ensure that every American pays their fair share of taxes. We have had a dramatic increase in collection success by virtue of this program, and here we are gutting it because a very small group of people seems to oppose it. It happens to be union opposition. As a taxpayer, I pay my fair share of taxes. I want to make sure that every other American pays their fair share of taxes, and that is exactly what this 10-year-old program has done, and has done with success. Mr. Speaker, I really am very, very puzzled as we begin today with the debate on two rules that will lead to legislation being considered here on the House floor. The reason I am perplexed is we are dealing with two very important issues. The majority leadership clearly has its right and its responsibility to move their agenda. They want to do what they are planning to do now on this issue of private sector collection of taxes, and they want to dramatically expand housing programs. Those are the two things that the majority is planning to move to the floor today. But I just don't understand, Mr. Speaker. I just don't understand why it is that we are doing what we are doing. My friend from California, Mr. Cardoza, just described how the Rules Committee was run when I had the privilege of serving as chairman of the committee. He said we have what is a customary closed rule, I think is the term that he used. Is that the term? I would be happy to yield to my friend.