Before the first Gulf War in 1991, Congress met to debate whether or not our nation should embark on that venture. We devoted more than 20 hours to it, and it wasn't a debate in name only. Everyone had a chance to speak. When we voted, there were three separate resolutions to choose from, two from Democrats, and one from Republicans. Leaders from both parties worked on the legislation together, and spoke highly of the bipartisan nature of the process. Reporters at the time said that it was one of the best debates they had ever witnessed on the House floor.
Now, 15 years after that first debate and more than three years since Congress authorized the current war in Iraq, that kind of bipartisan agreement, respect and cooperation is nothing more than a faint memory. Instead, we were forced to debate an empty piece of legislation with no opportunity for improving it. We were limited to 10 hours of debate, not nearly enough time for every member of Congress to speak on this critical issue.
If the Republican leadership was serious about this debate, and serious about coming together to discuss the war in Iraq, the Republican-controlled Rules Committee would have granted the resolution an open rule, as my fellow Democrats and I requested, which would have permitted members from both parties to present amendments to the resolution, and would have given any member who wished to discuss the resolution on the House floor five minutes to do so.
Over the course of the 109th Congress, out of 144 different rules presented by Republicans, only one rule that wasn't an appropriations measure has been made open. One. If there was ever a rule that should be open to give members a chance to debate and amend a piece of legislation, it was this rule. An open rule would have made Thursday a day of consequence instead of a day of mere politics. It would have given Congress the chance to seriously debate and, what's more, perhaps even improve the policies currently being pursued in Iraq.
Clearly, however, Thursday wasn't about policy, or progress. It was about politics. It was about giving the majority a chance to make cheap political attacks against Democrats in anticipation of the coming midterm elections. And, to make that perfectly clear, an internal Republican memo about the coming debate discussed how to best smear Democrats during the debate more than it discussed our policies in Iraq.
Even during a supposed debate on a war, the Republican leadership's main concern is painting Democrats in a negative light. Because that, truly, was the purpose of Thursday's session. And to waste time on political posturing when we could have been working toward a better policy in Iraq is not only disrespectful to the 2,500 American soldiers who have given their lives to this cause, it's unconscionable.
Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, D- N.Y., is ranking member of the House Rules Committee.
