[Congressional Record: November 3, 2005 (House)]
[Page H9566-H9568]
QUESTION OF PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE
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
[[Page H9567]]
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.
{time} 1130
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.
Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Walsh
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion that the
appeal be laid on the table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by a 5-minute vote
on adoption of House Resolution 527.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220,
nays 191, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 562]
YEAS--220
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--191
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boucher
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--22
Bishop (UT)
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Chabot
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Hall
Hastings (FL)
Istook
King (NY)
McMorris
Norwood
Pombo
Roybal-Allard
Schiff
Serrano
Tiahrt
Towns
Weldon (PA)
{time} 1158
Mr. HIGGINS, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee, Ms. WASSERMAN
SCHULTZ, Messrs. GORDON, GENE GREEN of Texas, ABERCROMBIE, PASTOR,
HIGGINS, and RUSH changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. McHENRY, PENCE, SOUDER, and Mrs. BLACKBURN changed their vote
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
[[Page H9568]]
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
