Question of Privileges of the House

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE -- (House of Representatives - November 03, 2005)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, because the Republican-led Congress has not conducted any investigations of abuses by the Republican administration's decision to go to war in Iraq, and because the over 2,000 American soldiers have lost their lives and more than 15,000 have been wounded, therefore, pursuant to rule IX, I rise in regard to a question of privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged resolution.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

Privileged Resolution on Iraq

Whereas the war in Iraq has resulted in the loss of over 2,000 American lives and more than 15,000 wounded soldiers, and has cost the American people $190 billion dollars;

Whereas the basis for going to war was Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the President made a series of misleading statements regarding threats posed by Iraq, but no weapons of mass destruction have been found;

Whereas the Republican Leadership and Committee Chairmen have repeatedly denied requests by Democratic Members to complete an investigation of pre-war intelligence on Iraq and have ignored the question of whether that intelligence was manipulated for political purposes;

Whereas the Vice President's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby has been indicted on five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements in connection with the disclosure of the identity of a CIA operative, and that disclosure was part of a pattern of Administration efforts to discredit critics of the Iraq war;

Whereas four separate requests to hold hearings on the disclosure of the CIA operative were denied in the Government Reform Committee, and Resolutions of Inquiry were rejected in the Intelligence, Judiciary, Armed Services, and International Relations Committees;

Whereas the American people have spent $20.9 billion dollars to rebuild Iraq with much of the money squandered on no-bid contracts for Halliburton and other favored contractors;

Whereas Halliburton received a sole-source contract worth $7 billion to implement the restoration of Iraq's oil infrastructure, and a senior Army Corps of Engineers official wrote that the sole-source contract was ``coordinated with the Vice President's office'';

Whereas despite these revelations, on July 22, 2004 the Republican controlled Government Reform Committee voted to reject a subpoena by Democratic Members appropriately seeking information on communications of the Vice President's office on awarding contracts to Halliburton;

Whereas prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Guantanamo, and Afghanistan have seriously damaged the reputation of the United States, and increased the danger to U.S. personnel serving in Iraq and abroad;

Whereas the Republican Leadership and Committee Chairmen have denied requests for hearings, defeated resolutions of inquiry for information, and failed to aggressively pursue serious allegations, including how far up the chain of command the responsibility lies for the treatment of detainees;

Whereas the oversight of decisions and actions of other branches of government is an established and fundamental responsibility of Congress;

Whereas the Republican Leadership and the Chairmen of the committees of jurisdiction have failed to undertake meaningful, substantive investigations of any of the abuses pertaining to the Iraq war, including the manipulation of pre-war intelligence, the public release of a covert operative's name, the role of the Vice President in Iraqi reconstruction, and the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal: Therefore be it

Resolved, That the House calls upon the Republican Leadership and Chairmen of the committees of jurisdiction to comply with their oversight responsibilities, demands they conduct a thorough investigation of abuses relating to the Iraq War, and condemns their refusal to conduct oversight of an Executive Branch controlled by the same party, which is in contradiction to the established rules of standing committees and Congressional precedent.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the minority leader wish to offer argument on the parliamentary question whether the resolution presents a question of the privileges of the House?

Ms. PELOSI. Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is recognized.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I do not hear an objection to my motion.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized to offer argument on whether the resolution is privileged.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate some of what I said in the motion to instruct.

For the past 2 1/2 years since our country has gone to war, we have paid a big price for a bad policy based on faulty intelligence which was wrong, based on a false premise without proper planning and putting our young people at risk. In that period of time, that 2 1/2 years, over 2,000 Americans have lost their lives. Every single one of them is precious to us, but, as the toll mounts, the grief does as well. Over 15,000 of our young people have lost their limbs, 15,000 have been injured, many of them permanently, many with loss of limb and sight, at a cost of over $250 billion, a quarter of a trillion dollars, to the taxpayer and just endless cost to our reputation in the world.

I think it begs the question, are we safer in America because of this war? What is this war doing to the preparedness of our troops? I think that the answer to both of those is negative, and I think it calls for an examination of what the intelligence was to get us there in the first place. Was it manipulated? Why was there no plan for us to go into Iraq, a post-war plan for after the fall of Iraq, as well as an exit strategy?

The American people love freedom for ourselves and for people throughout the world, but we have to examine what the cost of this war is and why even the Republican Department of Defense has said----

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, regular order.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair must ask the distinguished minority leader to confine her comments to the rule IX question.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thought there was no objection and that we were just speaking on the resolution. Is that a mistake? My impression from what you said when you yielded to me was that there was no objection, and did I wish to speak on the motion.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The minority leader was recognized on the question of whether or not her resolution presents a question of the privileges of the House.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, then I will just conclude by saying, can the Chair please explain why it is not in order to discuss on the floor of this House, of this great democratic institution, a situation where our young people are in harm's way, the death toll mounts, the injuries mount, the cost to the taxpayer mounts, the cost to our reputation mounts, and we have a cover-up Congress that will not investigate, will not ask any questions about the intelligence which was wrong, which got us into war in the first place and the lack of a plan providing for our troops, what they need to serve and to come home safely and soon? Why is that not in order on the floor of the House?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is not whether such a debate is in order but whether the resolution is a question of privilege.

Under rule IX, questions of the privileges of the House are those ``affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, its dignity [or] the integrity of its proceedings.'' A question of the privileges of the House may not be invoked to effect an interpretation of the rules of the House, or to prescribe an order of business for the House, or to establish a norm for the conduct of business by the House or its committees.

In some circumstances, the manner in which business is conducted might properly be arraigned by a question of the privileges of the House. But the Chair must maintain a distinction between, for example, an allegation of willful malfeasance by a Member, officer, employee, or committee of the House, on one hand, and an allegation that a Member, officer, employee, or committee of the House failed to follow a course of action that the proponent of the resolution or others consider advisable.

As Speaker pro tempore Cox noted in the decision of September 20, 1888 (which is recorded in Hinds' Precedents at volume 3, section 2601), there need be an allegation of, at least, impropriety.

The Chair must hold that the resolution offered by the distinguished minority leader does not affect the rights of the House collectively, its safety, its dignity, or the integrity of its proceedings within the meaning of rule IX. As such, the resolution does not constitute a question of privilege.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I must confess I am confused about where we are at this point. I thought I heard the Speaker----

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gingrey). The gentleman is not recognized for debate.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, is it not appropriate for a Member to speak on a point of order? Is it not appropriate for the gentleman from Wisconsin to be able to speak on a point of order that was lodged by the other side?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has ruled. The question of order has already been disposed of.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his inquiry.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thought I just heard you indicate that for the motion to be in order one of the questions that might have to be present was the question of the dignity of the House. When we are told that $100 million of taxpayers' money has been slipped into an appropriation bill for an illegal purpose, is that not, in fact, a challenge to the dignity of the House?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not an appropriate parliamentary inquiry at this stage.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I think it brings shame to the House for this Congress to be engaged in a cover-up when it comes to reviewing what is happening in Iraq, and I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov