U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

24–519PDF 2006

REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND

DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO PROVIDE TO

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CERTAIN DOCUMENTS IN

THEIR POSSESSION RELATING TO THE WHITE HOUSE IRAQ

GROUP

MARKUP

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H. Res. 505

NOVEMBER 9, 2005

Serial No. 109–134

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman 

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, 

Vice Chairman 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

PETER T. KING, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

RON PAUL, Texas 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

THADDEUS G. MCCOTTER, Michigan 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

TOM LANTOS, California 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel 

ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director 

DANIEL FREEMAN, Counsel/Parliamentarian 

JEAN CARROLL, Full Committee Hearing Coordinator 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

MARKUP OF 

H. Res. 505, Requesting the President of the United States and directing 

the Secretary of State to provide to the House of Representatives certain 

documents in their possession relating to the White House Iraq Group ........ 2

(1)

REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND 

DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO PROVIDE TO 

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CERTAIN DOCUMENTS 

IN THEIR POSSESSION RELATING TO THE WHITE HOUSE 

IRAQ GROUP 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:50 a.m. in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Chairman HYDE. The Committee will come to order. Pursuant to 

notice, I call up the resolution, H. Res. 505, requesting the President of the United States and directing the Secretary of State to 

provide to the House of Representatives certain documents in their 

possession relating to the White House Iraq Group for purposes of 

markup and move to report it adversely. Without objection, the resolution will be considered as read and open for amendment at any 

point. 

[The resolution follows:]

2


24519a.eps
3

Chairman HYDE. I will make an opening statement, Mr. Lantos 

will, and then we will open the bill up for amendment and discussion. 

Today, the Committee will consider a resolution of inquiry. Mr. 

Kucinich of Ohio introduced H. Res. 505, requesting the President 

and directing the Secretary of State to transmit all documents from 

2003 pertaining to the task force organized by Andrew Card, consisting of Karl Rove, Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin, Nicolas Calio, 

James Wilkinson, Condoleezza Rice, Stephen Hadley, and I. Lewis 

Libby, known as the White House Iraq Group. 

H. Res. 505 is this Committee’s ninth resolution of inquiry. Chief 

of Staff Andrew Card formed the White House Iraq Group in August 2002 to set strategy for each stage of the confrontation with 

Baghdad. The request for White House documents comes in the 

midst of numerous and extensive investigations into prewar intelligence on Iraq. Please bear with me while I summarize a sample 

of these investigations. 

The two congressional Select Committees on Intelligence, the 

Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States 

regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, known as the SilbermanRobb Commission; the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee; and the British Hutton Inquiry all reviewed, in detail, 

issues of prewar intelligence on Iraq, and none found any evidence 

of Administration officials attempting to coerce, influence, or pressure intelligence analysts. 

The Senate and House Permanent Select Committees on Intelligence reviewed, and continues to review, prewar intelligence on 

Iraq. Both Committees, while finding failures in our intelligence assessments and methods, found no evidence that the Administration 

fixed intelligence to justify its policies. For instance, Conclusion No. 

83 in the Senate Intelligence Committee report, entitled ‘‘U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq,’’ 

states:

‘‘The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration 

officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to 

change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities.’’

This conclusion, as is true of the entire report, was approved by 

a unanimous bipartisan vote by the Senate Committee. The Senate’s report, which runs over 500 pages, is the product of over 12 

months of Committee review of more than 45,000 pages of intelligence documents spanning a decade and consisting of interviews 

of more than 200 individuals, including White House staff and documents from four Committee hearings. 

The scope of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s inquiry into 

prewar assessments regarding Iraq is without precedent in the 

Committee. Chairman Roberts’s, Senator Roberts’s, conclusion on 

the issue of intelligence manipulation is worth repeating:

‘‘In the end, what the President used to make the extremely 

difficult decision to go to war was what he got from the intelligence community and not what he or Administration officials 

tried to make of it. The House Permanent Select Committee on 

Intelligence reviewed United States intelligence regarding the 

4

number or existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, including the issue of bias, dissenting views, and how intelligence was disseminated and the linkages between Iraq and 

terrorist organizations. Again, no evidence of fixing intelligence 

surfaced.’’

The Silberman-Robb Commission is seen as producing the definitive report on the issue of prewar intelligence on Iraq. This was a 

blue-ribbon, bipartisan commission supported by 88 bipartisan professionals and consultants. Its report runs over hundreds of pages 

and is nothing, if not thorough in its scope and depth of review. 

The commission concluded:

‘‘After a thorough review, the Commission found no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. What the intelligence professionals told you about Saddam Hussein’s programs was what they believed. They were simply wrong. 

‘‘Finally, we closely examined the possibility that intelligence 

analysts were pressured by policymakers to change their judgments about Iraq’s nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons 

programs. The analysts who worked Iraq’s weapons issues universally agreed that in no instance did political pressure cause 

them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments.’’

In reviewing the mountain of public evidence that refutes the notion of any fixing of intelligence, we should not ignore the obvious. 

There was no need for supporters of the war to fix intelligence on 

the run-up to the war because the prewar belief among the intelligence community and policymakers that Iraq had weapons of 

mass destruction was overwhelming. Both the Intelligence Committee and leaders of both political parties believed with certainty 

that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. For example, in 1998, 

President Clinton stated, and I quote:

‘‘There should be no doubt Saddam’s ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the 

peace of that region and the security of the world.’’

National Security Adviser Sandy Berger remarked:

‘‘Year after year, in conflict after conflict, Saddam has proven 

that he seeks weapons, including weapons of mass destruction, 

in order to use them.’’

Senator John Kerry stated in 2003:

‘‘I think Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction are a 

threat, and that is why I voted to hold him accountable and 

to make certain we disarm him.’’

In 2004, when asked whether it was a fair statement that the 

Administration misled the American people, former weapons inspector David Kay responded:

‘‘I think it is not fair, and it also trivializes what we did find 

and the problem we face. The problem we face is that before 

the war, not only the U.S. Administration and United States 

intelligence but the French, British, Germans, the UN, all 

thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.’’

5

David Kay noted that ‘‘this view of Iraq was held during the Clinton Administration and did not change in the Bush Administration.’’

The British inquiry into prewar intelligence on Iraq rendered 

findings similar to those found in all of the United States reports. 

In his summary of conclusions, Lord Hutton dismissed the allegation that the British intelligence dossier supporting the use of force 

against Iraq was ‘‘sexed up.’’

‘‘I consider that the allegation was unfounded, as it would 

have been understood by those who heard the broadcast to 

mean that the dossier had been embellished with intelligence 

known or believed to be false or unreliable, which was not the 

case.’’

That was a quote from Lord Hutton. 

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence recently announced 

its intention to complete its second phase of its investigation into 

the Bush Administration’s use of prewar intelligence in Iraq. This 

second phase will focus on the question raised by H. Res. 505, the 

White House’s presentation to the public of its case for Iraq, that 

is, how Bush Administration officials, including the White House 

Iraq Group, handled prewar intelligence, including whether the information was misrepresented in White House statements to the 

public. 

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has collected public 

statements of Bush Administration officials, as well as intelligence 

data available at the time. The senators will determine if such public statements were justified by the data. 

Finally, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald reportedly subpoenaed White House Iraq Group documents. 

In light of all of these past and ongoing investigations into the 

Administration’s use of prewar intelligence on Iraq, the House 

International Relations Committee need not insert itself into an intelligence issue best addressed by the Select Committees on Intelligence. 

I urge you to vote with me to report H. Res. 505. I would like 

to point out that I have a litany of quotations from very prominent 

Democratic officials during the Clinton Administration, including 

the Secretary of State, the National Security Adviser, and others, 

all of them asserting as a fact that weapons of mass destruction 

were available to Saddam Hussein. Everybody believed it, that is 

what the intelligence showed, and that is what the previous Administration, as well as the Bush Administration, relied on. 

So I think this is a political effort to embarrass the President. 

I do not care how we got into the war. That, we will have to argue 

until doomsday, but one thing I do know: We had better win. We 

had better not lose this war. We had better not get chased out of 

the Middle East, and if that happens, that will be a disaster. And 

I ask myself, does this effort here today help or hinder our ultimate 

victory and coming home from that part of the world? I hope that 

you will ask yourself that question, too. 

Now, I turn to my friend, the Ranking Democratic Member, Mr. 

Lantos, for his remarks. 

6

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and before I 

offer my brief observations, I want to welcome to the Committee 

our distinguished colleague and my good friend, Congressman 

Kucinich, and his lovely wife from Ohio. 

Mr. Chairman, a number of issues have created doubt in the 

minds of many Americans as to whether their government has 

been straight with them, whether the government committed its 

sons and daughters to do battle on the basis of an honest analysis 

of the facts. That is a most regrettable development. Experience 

tells us it is difficult to win on the battlefield when the people lose 

confidence in their leaders. 

Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, we live in a country where patriotic 

men and women can criticize their most senior officials in the most 

unrestrained fashion and do so with impunity. 

I am also worried when some senior officials fail to take the necessary and appropriate actions to allay all of the concerns of all of 

their critics. 

Mr. Chairman, House Resolution 505 presents the Administration with an opportunity to put to rest the charges that it exaggerated intelligence or misled the nation into war. It asks only that 

the Administration allow this body to examine the relevant documents of the White House Iraq Group. It asks only that the Administration cooperate in allowing Congress to do the oversight work 

that the proper functioning of our democracy requires. 

Mr. Chairman, the courageous and extraordinary men and 

women carrying out the mission in Iraq are our constituents, and 

every Member of this body fully supports them. I have said it before, and I will say it again: We owe it to our soldiers and to all 

of our constituents to develop a complete picture of the decisionmaking and analysis that led the United States to go to war to 

bring down the regime of Saddam Hussein. And the Executive 

Branch owes it to the American people to make certain that their 

representatives are fully informed. 

Mr. Chairman, I fully understand that the Administration does 

not welcome this resolution, but it should. This resolution offers 

the Administration a useful instrument to stem the decline in public trust. At a time when popular support for the war is diminishing, the refusal of the Executive Branch to do all it can to put 

skeptics’ questions to rest only further undermines support. That 

is why I support this resolution, Mr. Chairman, and that is why 

I urge all of my colleagues across the aisle to do likewise. Thank 

you. 

Chairman HYDE. Are there any amendments? Mr. Menendez. 

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I seek to strike the last word. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since the ratification 

of our Constitution, the Congress has assumed the right and the 

obligation to oversee the Executive Branch. Recently, however, the 

Republican leadership has been disgraceful in its neglect of that obligation by virtually abdicating its right to oversight in order to 

protect its leaders in the White House, and the American people 

have paid the price. 

This Administration led the country into an elective war on what 

we now know were false premises. We also know that the AdminisVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:33 Jun 15, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\110905M\24519.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
7

tration rushed into war, that there was minimal planning for the 

post-war era, and that we currently have no plan to win the peace. 

And as a result of this lack of planning, thousands of our young 

men and women have died and thousands more have been wounded. And we know that this effort to market and sell this to the 

American people was done by a working group in the White House 

which is the subject of this resolution. 

But that is not all. A CIA operative has been compromised, her 

name allegedly leaked in retaliation for criticism of the Administration’s weak justifications for the war by her husband; a member of 

the White House staff has now been indicted in the investigation 

related to that leak; and the President, who promised that none of 

his staff were involved in the leak and who clearly stated he would 

fire anyone who was involved, has still not followed through with 

his promise. 

Let me be clear. There is no more sacred trust that we can give 

our President than the decision to go to war, the decision to send 

our young men and women into harm’s way. As Members of Congress and as Americans, we must learn the true story behind this 

President’s decision to take this country into an elective war and 

the leaking of the name of a CIA operative. This Committee should 

be ashamed that not one, but two, resolutions of inquiry requesting 

an independent investigation into the Valerie Plame case were 

voted down by the Republicans on a partisan basis; not one, but 

two, opportunities to learn the truth about who compromised the 

secret identity of a CIA officer and why have been squandered. 

When 2,056 Americans have died so far and thousands more 

have been wounded, when this past October was declared the 

fourth-deadliest month in Iraq overall and the deadliest since January, when, on Monday, a suicide bomber plowed into an American 

check point and killed four American soldiers in the deadliest suicide bomber against Americans in more than 4 months, this Republican-led Congress has blindly signed check after check to this Administration without insisting on a timeline or a success strategy 

with verifiable and discernable benchmarks. 

So I ask again, why has this Congress not fulfilled its obligation 

to exercise oversight over the Executive? It should not be a partisan issue. Learning the truth about the reasons behind this war 

should not depend on what side of the aisle you are on, supporting 

the troops by giving them clear benchmarks to define the strategy 

for success should not depend on what side of the aisle you sit on, 

and standing up for the men and women who risk their lives as 

covert agents around the world to protect the national security of 

the United States should certainly not depend on what side of the 

aisle you sit on. 

So it is past time for Congress to take back its right to act as 

a check and balance against the Executive. It is past time for Congress to fulfill its obligation to the American people and demand 

information on the Iraq war and the leaking of the name of a CIA 

operative. It is past time for Congress to fulfill its responsibility to 

oversee the President and the Executive Branch. 

In closing, I remind the Members of this Committee of what 

President Ford once said: ‘‘Truth is the glue that holds government 

together.’’ The Republican leadership has already lost two opportuVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:33 Jun 15, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\110905M\24519.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
8

nities to do the right thing. We must not lose another one. I urge 

my colleagues to support the original bill. 

Chairman HYDE. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen? 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Since 

the brutal terrorist attack of September 11th, the United States 

has responded with the policies that offer a pragmatic approach to 

the challenges that we face. These have included taking the fight 

to the terrorists and their supporters, denying them resources and 

sanctuary, keeping them on the run so that they cannot target us 

at home, all while simultaneously assisting the developing of the 

Middle East into a bastion of stable, free-market, democratic societies as a means of addressing the conditions that breed extremism 

and violence, and Iraq is at the crux of this effort. 

Within this past year alone, the people of Iraq have not only held 

free elections, have approved a new Iraqi Constitution this past October, but they are diligently preparing for nationwide elections on 

December 15th. Today, the Iraqi people remain engaged in a political process aimed at creating a unified and a democratic Iraq, to 

the envy of neighboring countries such as Iran and Syria and to 

the chagrin of these tyrannical regimes. These terrorists understand the importance of Iraq for the immediate, short-term goals 

of the global war on terror and for the long-term preventative 

strategy to address the root causes of terrorism and Islamic extremism. The terrorists are doing everything in their power to destroy 

what has been accomplished in Iraq thus far. Americans serving in 

Iraq understand the critical nature of the United States effort in 

that country. 

I am proud of my stepson’s service in Iraq. He and his fiancee 

are flying F–18’s right now in Iraq. Dougie and Lindsey understand 

their mission. We in the United States must also understand and 

value and respect their mission. Let us move forward, stop dwelling 

on the past, focus on the future, how we can join forces to support, 

to assist, to complement the excellent work that Americans of all 

backgrounds and, specifically, our men and women in uniform are 

performing in Iraq to ensure the success of their mission. 

In the aftermath of September 11th, the words of former President Ronald Reagan echo stronger than ever: ‘‘As we did during the 

Cold War,’’ he said, ‘‘you and I now have a rendezvous with destiny. If we fail,’’ as President Reagan said, ‘‘at least let our children 

and our children’s children say of us, we justified our brief moment 

here. We did all that could be done.’’

So let us commit ourselves to ensuring the success of our mission 

in Iraq, keep the terrorists on the run, deny them safe sanctuary, 

help spread freedom and democracy as an antidote to terror, to Islamic extremists, to violence, to incitement. Let us channel our energy toward the future, on what we seek to accomplish, and stop 

wasting our efforts on rehashing the past yet again. I ask my colleagues to vote to report this measure adversely. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Will the gentlelady yield to me? 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman HYDE. I have a couple of quotes I would like to advise 

the Committee of. Here is one: ‘‘He will use those weapons of mass 

destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983.’’ That was Sandy 

9

Berger at a town hall meeting. That is in USA Today, February 19, 

1998. 

But here is a quote that you ought to enjoy:

‘‘Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of 

weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to 

countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the 

weapons inspection process.’’

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Who said that, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HYDE. Just a minute. I will get to it. I have got another zinger here:

‘‘The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to 

eliminate weapons of mass destruction, minimize the danger to 

our troops, and diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people.’’

That was from Nancy Pelosi. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No. 

Chairman HYDE. Yes. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I cannot believe that. 

Chairman HYDE. December 16, 1998. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I am shocked. 

Chairman HYDE. I also would point out to my friend from New 

Jersey, there are two Intelligence Committees on the Hill, one in 

the Senate and one in the House, and they are bipartisan, and both 

of them have done their job and are continuing to do their job. To 

say that we have waived our oversight responsibilities is absolute 

nonsense. I thank the gentlelady. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the Chairman, and I yield back. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. 

Mr. Delahunt? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the Chairman. I would like to begin with 

a quote, too, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. By all means. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. ‘‘This Administration is seeing Congress as an 

enemy and a constitutional nuisance. The world right now is in 

trouble, and we need to have a Congress and a President and an 

Executive Branch that is working together.’’ That is from Senator 

Chuck Hagel from Nebraska, Mr. Chairman, in case you are interested. 

You know, this resolution is about a very significant and important issue, but at a fundamental level, the topic is actually irrelevant because it is about us. It is about the Committee, and it is 

about the role of Congress. We face a choice today. We can fulfill 

our constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the Executive 

Branch, or we can continue to be a rubber stamp for the White 

House. We can serve the people of the United States, or we can 

serve the White House. That is the choice before us today. 

We have not investigated how the Bush Administration used taxpayer dollars to sell a war that was a distraction from the real war, 

those that attacked us on 9/11. We have not examined the complete 

lack of planning for post-war Iraq, a lack of planning that has enabled the insurgency to kill more than three Americans daily. We 

have not examined how the White House’s handling of the war has 

destroyed our image in the world. It goes on and on and on. We 

10

have not looked into the incredible corruption that is ongoing today 

in Iraq. One only has to read some statements and reports from 

those who are advocates for the war, the massive amount of corruption. We have failed in our responsibility. 

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is time for us to stand 

up and to do our job, and I will yield back. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Burton? 

Mr. BURTON. I have high regard for my colleagues on the other 

side of the aisle, especially the ‘‘Silver Fox from Massachusetts’’ 

who just spoke, but I do not see things quite the way my colleagues 

do. The implication is that the Administration lied, and that is why 

we went to war, but I can remember sitting on the Floor of the 

House in closed meetings with both Democrats and Republicans 

there where we were getting classified briefings, and it was very, 

very clear what the situation was. 

After those classified briefings, I heard, with great strength in 

their voices, my Democratic colleagues, including the ones the 

Chairman mentioned, Sandy Berger and Nancy Pelosi, your leader, 

standing up and extolling the virtues of the Administration in taking this war to the enemy, to Saddam Hussein, and taking this war 

to the terrorists and the threat that it brought to the United States 

of America and how we had to do this. 

I listened to those speeches, and I even applauded a lot of the 

Democrats’ speeches. What I cannot figure out is where all of this 

selective memory loss came from because most of you that are talking today do not remember those speeches, do not remember how 

you were very forcefully in favor of sending our troops into Iraq to 

preserve freedom and democracy and eliminating the threat of terrorism. But you were doing it, and yet, today, you know, we hear 

that the President was misleading us, that everything was a pack 

of lies, and it just is not so. 

I understand your desire to get back in a majority, and I understand that your conference, when you meet, the number one objective is not just to do the right thing here in Congress but to win 

this next election and get back in control, and I can understand 

that. You have been out of power for about 11 years, but do not 

distort the truth. The fact of the matter is Democrats and Republicans alike, based upon information that we received, intelligence 

data from around the world, led all of us to believe that the right 

thing to do was to go to war with Saddam Hussein and eliminate 

potential weapons of mass destruction. And let us not forget that 

Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction against his 

own people, the Kurds,—he killed thousands and thousands—and 

in the Iraq-Iran War, for 7 years, he used weapons of mass destruction. 

So what were we to believe after we got intelligence reports, that 

he had changed his mind, that all of a sudden he had become clean 

after he had buried three or 400,000 people in mass graves and 

used weapons of mass destruction? Come on. I understand your desire to change the makeup of this place, but let us do it with facts, 

and let us not do it with innuendo that is not accurate. 

Let me just say one more thing when you start talking about the 

Sandy Berger case. Sandy Berger was not indicted because he 

outed a CIA agent; he was indicted because he allegedly lied to a 

11

grand jury, which is what Bill Clinton did when he was President, 

when he looked into the camera, and he said to the American people, Hey, I want to tell you folks something. I did not have sex with 

that woman, Ms. Lewinski. 

Now, all I want to tell you is that the fact of the matter is that 

Mr. Libby——

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Burton, you did not mean Sandy Berger, did 

you? That is what you said. 

Mr. BURTON. Bill Clinton. 

Mr. LANTOS. No. You meant ‘‘Scooter’’ Libby. 

Mr. BURTON. Excuse me. ‘‘Scooter’’ Libby. Sandy Berger was 

sticking papers in his sock and going outside of a library. I forgot 

about that. I must have had that confused. But the fact of the matter is ‘‘Scooter’’ Libby was not indicted for outing a CIA agent; he 

was indicted because he allegedly lied, and we still have innocence 

until proven guilty in this country. 

So all I just want to say to my colleagues is that I have high regard for you on the other side of the aisle. I understand your desire 

to get back in the majority, but remember, it was a consolidated 

effort to send our troops to war based upon intelligence information 

that all of us believed was accurate and that there were weapons 

of mass destruction. I yield back. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Ackerman? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not going to get 

into where you stick your socks or anything like that, but it seems 

to me, in reading the resolution, that there is nothing there that 

embarrasses the President. The language is absolutely neutral. It 

just calls for us to gather information to find out what happened, 

and while it has been asserted here by some that they do not care 

what happened in the past to get us into the war, that it is just 

necessary that we win, I do not know that the two are mutually 

exclusive. I think we do have to win, and I think we also have to 

find out how we got into the war. 

If you want to know my belief at this point, and I hope the President can clear it up, I think the President and those in his Administration lied. They lied to the American people, they lied to the 

Congress, they lied to this Committee, and I think that this is their 

opportunity, if they wish, to clear it up. 

Mr. Lantos made clear that this is an opportunity for them unless there is really something that they want to hide and cover up, 

and this Committee has set as its task to whitewash those actions. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Will the gentleman yield for a question? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Let me just finish, and I would be delighted. 

I liken it to people sitting on a jury listening to the prosecutor 

present the evidence about the well-known s.o.b. who is in the 

dock, and he presents all kinds of evidence, and the jury, to a man 

and woman, sees the evidence and examines the evidence and 

hears the case as it is presented, and beyond a reasonable doubt 

decides that this guy is guilty and sets him out to hang, and they 

hang him, and the world does not miss him. But then it is suddenly discovered that the prosecutor rigged the evidence, that he 

had evidence that he did not present to the other side, that there 

were other opinions, that there was other reasoning, that there 

were other witnesses, that there was other evidence, that there 

12

were other opinions that the case was otherwise than described 

and hid that information from the jury. 

What do you do when you are on the jury after you have hung 

a guy who is a bad guy but maybe did not do what they indicated 

in the case that was presented? That is the dilemma with which 

we are faced. I am not one who is in favor of cutting and running. 

I think it would be a disaster if we did that, but I think the biggest 

disaster is if this Committee, which has never looked into it, this 

Committee has never looked into it, abdicates in its responsibility, 

then I do not know what this Committee is supposed to be doing. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman yield for a question? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. The jury has been reassembled, and we demand 

to see all of the evidence. That is what this resolution says. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman yield for a question 

now? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I would be happy to yield to my friend from California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. When you suggested that the President lied, 

just to clarify for all of us what you mean by that, are you saying 

that when the President of the United States made these statements, that he knew something that he was saying was wrong, was 

fallacious, and that he intentionally gave wrong information to the 

American people? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I believe that the President misled the American 

people from the day he spoke to the Congress——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is not the question. Was it intentional? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Reclaiming my time, the President, in claiming 

that this was attributed to British intelligence; why the heck would 

some President attribute something to British intelligence when we 

have the best intelligence in the world? And that is because he 

knew what American intelligence indicated, that that story was full 

of holes from the very beginning, and he had sold it to us and to 

the American people. He misled the American people, and the 

quoting that was done from notable Democrats, if you will, that 

Saddam Hussein was engaged in pursuing a nuclear program and 

weapons of mass destruction, yes, that is true. He was, but it depends on what the meaning of ‘‘was’’ was because, grammatically, 

that is the pluperfect condition of the verb, and whether it is ongoing or not because everybody does know he was engaged, but that 

was in 1991 and maybe not in the next decade. 

We do not know that, but this resolution gives us the opportunity 

to find out what the Administration knew and when they knew it. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I just would request to strike the last word. 

I think asking our colleagues to define what they mean when they 

use the word ‘‘lying’’ is not an unreasonable question, and I was 

dismayed that—I am sincerely trying to understand the points you 

are making. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Not until I get my point out. Okay? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I would rather answer your question on your 

time. 

13

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I have the time, do I not? 

When you refused to answer my question——

Mr. ACKERMAN. I am here. I am ready to answer. Here I am. 

Chairman HYDE. The Chair would appreciate regular order. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am dismayed that when a direct question is asked, and a sincere question 

is asked about the meaning of what points are trying to be made 

here, that I got that kind of a brush-off, and I think that we deserve more, and the American people deserve more. 

When it is a claim that the President of the United States lied, 

are we hearing today that the people on the other side of the aisle 

who are making this claim are suggesting the President knew that 

it was not true but went ahead and said it anyway? That is a far 

different thing than saying the President was mistaken because, as 

we have heard from Chairman Hyde, numerous, numerous people 

were saying exactly the same thing, and, in fact, George Tenet, 

who was the director of the CIA, was, at that time, reaffirming everything that the President said prior to the President’s statement. 

That is his job. Having worked in the White House and having 

written Presidential statements, I can tell you that on things like 

this the director of the CIA has to have a check-off before that 

statement is made. George Tenet was not just a director of the CIA 

and a Republican appointee. He was, in fact, a Democrat appointee, 

and, in fact, he was not only a Democratic appointee, but as I 

pointed out in this Committee before, he was a Hill staffer, a Democrat Hill staffer, prior to getting that appointment. 

So do not tell me, and I cannot believe that George Tenet was 

intentionally lying, and all of these other people were intentionally 

lying. 

Chairman HYDE. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I certainly would, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Senator Ted Kennedy, on September 27, 2002, 

said, and I quote, ‘‘We have known for many years that Saddam 

Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.’’ 

Now, did he lie? Was he lying, or was he mistaken? Why attribute 

mistaken statements to lies, intentional deception, when they are 

done by a Republican, but when the Democrats, and I have got a 

litany here, when the Democrats do it, it is just a mistake? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is a very good point to make, Mr. Chairman. Just to reclaim my time, I would just say this, that——

Mr. ACKERMAN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. I will in one moment—that I 

think that what we are seeing is, again,—it is one thing for people 

to say, ‘‘We support the war effort,’’ and then to do everything they 

can to try to destroy the American people’s ability to withstand the 

pressures that come about with war. 

We lose people in wartime, always. If we are going to achieve our 

objectives, it will cause a loss of life. But since day one, even people 

on the other side of the aisle who claim to have been supportive 

of this effort have been talking in defeatist terms or nitpicking or 

back biting in order to undermine the public support for the effort 

itself. I think that does a great disservice to our country in achieving these goals which my colleagues suggest they are supporting. 

I certainly will yield to my friend, Mr. Ackerman. 

14

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you very much. There are many of us who 

have done nothing to undermine the effort. There are many of us 

on this side of the aisle who voted enthusiastically, and, like Ted 

Kennedy, I have to say I was on that jury, and he was on that jury, 

and the conclusions that he used to base his statements on, as we 

have, all of us have, were based on things that are, as likely as not, 

false, that were not telling the truth as you know it. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Now, if you think that what you are saying 

is the truth, and it happens not to be, that is not a lie. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Are you saying the President was out of the 

loop? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. I am saying the President was misinformed perhaps. Perhaps our intelligence systems were wrong. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Well, let us get the s.o.b.’s who misinformed the 

President. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me ask the gentleman one question, and 

that is, is the gentleman saying that with what he knows now, he 

would oppose this war effort and leave Saddam Hussein in power? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. With what I know now, that the Administration 

came to us with a stacked deck, lying, not telling the truth, and 

deceiving us,——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is not answering my question. 

Mr. ACKERMAN [continuing]. I would vote differently. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Again, you are—my question. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. If the Administration came to us honestly and 

made the case that he was a bad guy, I might just vote——

Chairman HYDE. Will the gentleman observe order, please? If we 

are going to have a hearing, we have to follow some decent procedures. 

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

Chairman. The fact is I, again, did not get an answer to the question in an honest discussion. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman’s time has long since expired, 

and certainly his antagonist has long since expired. 

Mr. Payne of New Jersey. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. A calming factor, I think, in 

this discussion. 

Let me say, though, that I certainly strongly support H. Res. 505. 

I urge my colleagues to support it. I commend my good friend and 

colleague, Mr. Kucinich, for introducing it. And I certainly was not 

with many of those quotes that were given. Thank God, I was one 

that did not believe that there were weapons of mass destruction 

in the first place and wondered how so many of my colleagues and 

friends that I respect so greatly did. 

As you may recall, I was privileged to lead the debate against allowing the President to have preemptive-strike, Congress giving 

away its power to the President to use as he saw fit. I was the, 

I guess, ranking Democrat at that time who opposed the war vehemently from the inception; and, therefore, as I indicated, had the 

privilege for 2 days, from 12 noon to midnight on Wednesday and 

12 noon to midnight on Thursday, to lead the debate. So, in my 

own history, I will go down in history because I think it was one 

of the most important opportunities that I have had in my political 

career by far. 

15

One of the reasons was that, at that time, Saddam Hussein said 

that the UN inspectors, led by Hans Blitz, could go anywhere. He 

prevented them for months and months, but then, knowing that he 

had no weapons of mass destruction and had put the big bluff on 

the world and many of our leaders, he finally said, well, you know, 

the bluff is over; let them come in because there were no weapons 

of mass destruction or chemical or biological weapons. The last 

chemical or biological weapons he had were given to him by the 

U.S. that he then used against the Kurds. They found some old, 

rusty canisters and thought they were onto something, but that 

was nothing. 

So that group in the White House, made up of White House 

Chief of Staff Andy Card, Senior Adviser Karl Rove, Secretary of 

State Condoleezza Rice, Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and 

Public Affairs Karen Hughes, Cheney’s former chief of staff ‘‘Scooter’’ Libby, Mary Matalin, Nicolas Calio, and James Wilkinson made 

up a group called ‘‘the WHIG.’’

It is very interesting, to go back in history, the Whig Party did 

not depend on England. As a matter of fact, the Whig Party opposed England, went to war against England, so there was no cooperation between the old Whig Party in our history and England. 

But the interesting thing, too, is that the Whig Party had an interest in the Constitution. they felt that the Constitution should be 

loosely interpreted. 

I had the privilege to teach history for many years in the Newark 

Public School System, and the Whig Party felt that the Constitution was not for strict constructionism. So what we have seen is 

our Constitution sort of manipulated by the House, ourselves, giving the President the right to do something that we should have 

the right to do. It made no sense to give the President the opportunity to decide when he wanted to use that authority to go to war: 

Over 2,000 United States troops dead; 30,000 to 50,000 Iraqis and 

maybe more; Valerie Plame exposed; Ambassador Joe Wilson, a 

great diplomat with long service for the United States of America, 

embarrassed. 

Because let me tell you, in foreign countries, when Ambassadors 

go and meet with their counterparts or Presidents of those countries or leaders, they have informal meetings, and these countries 

know that somewhere in the U.S. Embassy there is a CIA person 

somewhere down the line, usually the guy who has got those 

straight eyes that just move left to right, but they do not really expect that the spouse of an Ambassador, where they are having 

some wine over dinner, informal chat. 

So this whole thing is much more damaging than we think, this 

Valerie Plame incident, where today foreign leaders and dignitaries 

in their countries, when the U.S. Ambassador comes,—they are 

probably not even invited as much as they used to be to informal 

events—there is the suspicion that every Ambassador’s spouse may 

be a CIA operative; it has done irreparable damage to our country. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. PAYNE. I urge support of H. Res. 505. Thank you. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Paul of Texas. 

Mr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LANTOS. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. 

16

Chairman HYDE. State your inquiry. 

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, in about 10 minutes, we will have 

three votes, and all Members would like to plan their schedule. 

What is your pleasure in terms of setting a time for the vote on 

this matter? 

Chairman HYDE. Well, when they call the votes, I will make a 

motion—I will not make a motion—I will announce—that we will 

recess, and we will resume following the votes and a reasonable 

time for luncheon. So I will not know when that is until they call 

the votes, unless we can dispose of this before we are called to vote. 

That would be the ultimate. So let us try that anyway. 

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Paul. 

Mr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. During the years between 

2000 and 2004, there were a lot of votes on the House Floor, and 

I think, during that time, I voted by myself 126 times, and that 

was twice as many times as everybody else put together. I am neither proud of that nor ashamed of it. It is just the way it is, but, 

nevertheless, with that experience, you would think it would always be easy for me to make my votes, but, quite frankly, this is 

a difficult vote for me, for obvious reasons. 

One of the problems is there has been such rare support for the 

traditional American foreign policy of nonintervention. I still believe there are merits in the argument of nonentangling alliances 

that we were advised to follow, that it is a wise policy not to get 

involved in nation building. So it is the absence of support for that 

that makes it more difficult for me and puts me sort of in the middle of what is happening here today. 

I do believe the American people deserve to know all of the answers possible. I think, quite frankly, what we are asking for today 

is very little, and it is very late. If you think about it, this is exactly the debate that should have been occurring in 2002, being we 

went to war, and now it is a little bit late. And sometimes I think 

there are some who are involved that are disingenuous in their demands now for this information all of a sudden when, as was pointed out by our Chairman, there was a lot of support for this war 

from the opposition party, and all of a sudden, now it looks like 

maybe the President can be embarrassed, and there can be some 

political gain, not that either side is exempt from politicizing this, 

but I think that the Republicans, as a matter of fact, have been 

more consistent on this. They supported the war. They wanted the 

war. They want to continue the war, and they are putting the best 

light on it, and I think they are more consistent. 

I think the other side got into war. It was said the President took 

us to war. The President did take us to war, but who is supposed 

to take us to war? The Congress is supposed to take us to war. 

Whose responsibility is that? It is the Congress. We reneged on our 

responsibility, and now we would like to go back, and this was one 

of my arguments in 2002, is we want the President to make the 

decision because if it goes badly, we can jump on the President. 

So I see that as being disingenuous. I think, though, it is very 

important to point out that the author of this amendment cannot 

be included in that because he happens to have taken a stand with 

the other Administration that is exactly the same, being antiwar 

17

and going cautiously. So not everybody is in that category. But now 

we are looking for excuses and blame, blame the President and not 

ourselves if we reneged on our responsibility on making a decision 

when to go to war. 

It has been pointed out rather clearly by the Chairman these 

strong statements by the opposition party for the war, which is 

true, but these statements are meant to reassure us that it was 

condoned by both parties. From my viewpoint, it does not reassure 

me. That is my concern, that both sides march off to war without 

thinking. Then they look for scapegoats, and then they politicize 

the issue. That is where our problem is. 

I think that what we need to do is stop and start addressing the 

foreign policy overall. When you think about it, the whole scheme 

to go to war against Iraq was established in 1998 with the other 

party in charge, the Iraq Liberation Act, regime change, and what 

are we doing now? I will bet you a majority of both sides of this 

aisle right now are supporting the same kind of policy, to march 

for regime change in Iraq and Iran, because they are not questioning that. We do not change this policy. We are doing exactly 

the same thing. 

So I think it is time that we reassessed all of this policy and decide our responsibility, as Members of Congress, and quit playing 

this political blame game and saying that, boy, if we could only embarrass the President and politicize this without dealing with the 

real issue of what is best for America. Right now, I believe it is 

best for America to know why and how we went to war. The question was asked, how did we go to war? We know exactly how we 

went to war, because the government let the Executive Branch of 

government decide when we would go to war, totally ignoring our 

responsibility and the law of the land. 

So my strong suggestion is there is nothing wrong with the traditional American foreign policy of nonintervention, staying out of 

the internal affairs of other nations. Do not get involved in entangling alliances, and we, on our side, should condemn nation building just as we did when the previous Administration got involved 

in nation building, and we ran on that slogan. 

So I think it is time for us to be really honest with ourselves and 

decide what is best for this country. It is for that reason I will support H. Res. 505. 

Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on ordering the previous 

question. All in favor, say ‘‘aye.’’

[A chorus of ayes.] 

Chairman HYDE. Opposed, ‘‘nay.’’

[A chorus of noes.] 

Chairman HYDE. I kind of think the ayes have it. Okay. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach? 

Mr. LEACH. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach votes no. Mr. Smith of New Jersey? 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of New Jersey votes yes. Mr. Burton? 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Burton votes yes. Mr. Gallegly? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Aye. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gallegly votes yes. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen? 

18

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes yes. Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes. Mr. Royce? 

Mr. ROYCE. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Royce votes yes. Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. King votes yes. Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chabot votes yes. Mr. Tancredo? 

Mr. TANCREDO. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Tancredo votes yes. Mr. Paul? 

Mr. PAUL. Pass. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Paul passes. Mr. Issa? 

Mr. ISSA. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Issa votes yes. Mr. Flake? 

Mr. FLAKE. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Flake votes yes. Mrs. Davis? 

Mrs. DAVIS. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mrs. Davis votes yes. Mr. Green? 

Mr. GREEN. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Green votes yes. Mr. Weller? 

Mr. WELLER. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Weller votes yes. Mr. Pence? 

Mr. PENCE. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pence votes yes. Mr. McCotter? 

Mr. MCCOTTER. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCotter votes yes. Ms. Harris? 

Ms. HARRIS. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Ms. Harris votes yes. Mr. Wilson? 

Mr. WILSON. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Wilson votes yes. Mr. Boozman? 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Boozman votes yes. Mr. Barrett? 

Mr. BARRETT. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Barrett votes yes. Mr. Mack? 

Mr. MACK. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Mack votes yes. Mr. Fortenberry? 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Fortenberry votes yes. Mr. McCaul? 

Mr. MCCAUL. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCaul votes yes. Mr. Poe? 

Mr. POE. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Poe votes yes. Mr. Lantos? 

[No response.] 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Berman? 

[No response.] 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ackerman? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Pass. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ackerman passes. Mr. Faleomavaega? 

[No response.] 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Payne? 

Mr. PAYNE. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Payne votes no. Mr. Menendez? 

19

[No response.] 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Brown? 

[No response.] 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Sherman? 

Mr. SHERMAN. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Sherman votes no. Mr. Wexler? 

Mr. WEXLER. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Wexler votes no. Mr. Engel? 

Mr. ENGEL. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Engel votes no. Mr. Delahunt? 

[No response.] 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Meeks? 

Mr. MEEKS. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Meeks votes no. Ms. Lee? 

Ms. LEE. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Ms. Lee votes no. Mr. Crowley? 

[No response.] 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Blumenauer? 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Blumenauer votes no. Ms. Berkley? 

Ms. BERKLEY. Heck no. 

Ms. RUSH. Ms. Berkley votes no. Ms. Napolitano? 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Ms. Napolitano votes no. Mr. Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Schiff votes no. Ms. Watson? 

Ms. WATSON. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Ms. Watson votes no. Mr. Smith of Washington? 

Mr. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of Washington votes no. Ms. McCollum? 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Ms. McCollum votes no. Mr. Chandler? 

Mr. CHANDLER. Pass. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chandler passes. Mr. Cardoza? 

Mr. CARDOZA. Pass. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Cardoza passes. Chairman Hyde? 

Chairman HYDE. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Chairman Hyde votes yes. 

Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded? 

Chairman HYDE. How is the gentleman from New York, Mr. Ackerman, recorded? 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Menendez did not vote. 

Mr. MENENDEZ. And what is this vote on, just to make sure. 

Chairman HYDE. Just a moment, please. 

Mr. MENENDEZ. What is this vote on? 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Lantos? 

Mr. LANTOS. No. 

Chairman HYDE. Anybody else wish to vote? 

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary. What is 

the vote on before the Committee? 

Chairman HYDE. The vote is on the previous question. 

Mr. MENENDEZ. The answer is no. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Meeks, are you recorded? 

20

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Meeks voted no. 

Mr. MEEKS. I voted no. What is this, trying to silence people? Are 

you getting nervous here? 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Brown? 

[No response.] 

Chairman HYDE. Are there any further votes? 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. ACKERMAN. How am I recorded? 

Chairman HYDE. How is Mr. Ackerman recorded? 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ackerman passed. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I will make that an absolute no, a heck no. 

Chairman HYDE. Yes, sir? Did the clerk get the gentleman’s 

vote? 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Cardoza votes no. 

Chairman HYDE. All right. The clerk will report. 

Ms. RUSH. On this vote, there are 25 yeses and 19 noes. 

Chairman HYDE. The previous question is ordered, and the question occurs on the motion to report the resolution adversely. All in 

favor, say ‘‘aye.’’

[A chorus of ayes.] 

Chairman HYDE. Opposed, ‘‘no.’’

[A chorus of noes.] 

Mr. LANTOS. I request a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Your request will be granted. The clerk will call 

the roll. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach? 

Mr. LEACH. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach votes no. Mr. Smith of New Jersey? 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of New Jersey votes yes. Mr. Burton? 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Burton votes yes. Mr. Gallegly? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Aye. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gallegly votes yes. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen? 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes yes. Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes. Mr. Royce? 

Mr. ROYCE. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Royce votes yes. Mr. King? 

[No response.] 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chabot votes yes. Mr. Tancredo? 

Mr. TANCREDO. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Tancredo votes yes. Mr. Paul? 

Mr. PAUL. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Paul votes no. Mr. Issa? 

[No response.] 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Flake? 

Mr. FLAKE. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Flake votes yes. Mrs. Davis? 

Mrs. DAVIS. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mrs. Davis votes yes. Mr. Green? 

Mr. GREEN. Yes. 

21

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Green votes yes. Mr. Weller? 

Mr. WELLER. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Weller votes yes. Mr. Pence? 

Mr. PENCE. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pence votes yes. Mr. McCotter? 

Mr. MCCOTTER. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCotter votes yes. Ms. Harris? 

[No response.] 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Wilson? 

Mr. WILSON. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Wilson votes yes. Mr. Boozman? 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Boozman votes yes. Mr. Barrett? 

Mr. BARRETT. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Barrett votes yes. Mr. Mack? 

Mr. MACK. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Mack votes yes. Mr. Fortenberry? 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Fortenberry votes yes. Mr. McCaul? 

Mr. MCCAUL. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCaul votes yes. Mr. Poe? 

Mr. POE. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Poe votes yes. Mr. Issa? 

Mr. ISSA. Heck yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Issa votes yes. Mr. Lantos? 

Mr. LANTOS. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Lantos votes no. Mr. Berman? 

[No response.] 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ackerman? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Pass. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Faleomavaega? 

[No response.] 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Payne? 

Mr. PAYNE. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Payne votes no. Mr. Menendez? 

Mr. MENENDEZ. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Menendez votes no. Mr. Brown? 

Mr. BROWN. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Brown votes no. Mr. Sherman? 

Mr. SHERMAN. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Sherman votes no. Mr. Wexler? 

Mr. WEXLER. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Wexler votes no. Mr. Engel? 

Mr. ENGEL. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Engel votes no. Mr. Delahunt? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Delahunt votes no. Mr. Meeks? 

Mr. MEEKS. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Meeks votes no. Ms. Lee? 

Ms. LEE. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Ms. Lee votes no. Mr. Crowley? 

[No response.] 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Blumenauer? 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. No. 

22

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Blumenauer votes no. Ms. Berkley? 

Ms. BERKLEY. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Ms. Berkley votes no. Ms. Napolitano? 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Ms. Napolitano votes no. Mr. Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Schiff votes no. Ms. Watson? 

Ms. WATSON. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Ms. Watson votes no. Mr. Smith of Washington? 

Mr. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of Washington votes no. Ms. McCollum? 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Ms. McCollum votes no. Mr. Chandler? 

Mr. CHANDLER. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chandler votes no. Mr. Cardoza? 

Mr. CARDOZA. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Cardoza votes no. Chairman Hyde? 

Chairman HYDE. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Chairman Hyde votes yes. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. King? Mr. King? 

Mr. KING [continuing]. Votes yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. King votes yes. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Crowley? 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Crowley? 

[No response.] 

Ms. RUSH. Ms. Harris? 

Ms. HARRIS. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Votes yes. 

Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded? 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Ackerman wants to know how he is recorded. 

Ms. RUSH. He passed. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I am voting no. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ackerman votes no. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HYDE. Yes. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. How am I recorded? 

Chairman HYDE. Who is asking? Mr. Delahunt? 

Ms. RUSH. He voted no. 

Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report. 

Ms. RUSH. On this vote, there are 25 yeses and 23 noes. 

Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it. The motion reported adversely is adopted. 

Without objection, the staff is directed to make any technical and 

conforming changes. The Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

Æ