Raising a question of the privileges of the House.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows:

H. Res. --

Whereas the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, a Representative from

California, served from 1997 to 2002 as Ranking Democratic

Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence;

Whereas Representative Pelosi currently serves as Speaker

of the House, a position of considerable power and influence

within the Congress;

Whereas title 3 of the United States Code designates the

Speaker of the House as third in line of succession to the

Presidency;

Whereas Speaker Pelosi has publicly challenged the

truthfulness of what she and other congressional leaders were

told by Central Intelligence Agency officials about the

agency's use of enhanced interrogation techniques on

suspected terrorists;

Whereas in an MSNBC interview on February 25, 2009, Speaker

Pelosi stated, ``I can say flat-out, they never told us that

these enhanced interrogation techniques were being used'';

Whereas, Speaker Pelosi's public statements allege a

sustained pattern of deception by government intelligence

officers charged by law with informing Congress about the

agency's activities;

Whereas when asked at a press conference on May 15, 2009

widely reported by the news media, ``Madam Speaker, just to

be clear, you're accusing the CIA of lying to you in

September?'' Speaker Pelosi stated, ``Yes'';

Whereas during the same press conference the Speaker

subsequently stated, ``So yes, I'm saying they are

misleading, the CIA was misleading the Congress'' and

further, ``they mislead us all the time'' and ``they

misrepresented every step of the way'';

Whereas in a memorandum to CIA employees released publicly

on May 15, 2009, Leon Panetta, the CIA Director, stated, ``It

is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is

against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated

previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our

contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA

officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu

Zubaydah, describing the enhanced interrogation techniques

that had been employed'';

Whereas when asked in a press conference held June 4, 2009,

``Madam Speaker, are you still receiving intelligence

briefings?'' Speaker Pelosi responded by saying, ``Yes, I am;

yes, I am.'';

Whereas a June 5, 2009 article on Human Events.com

entitled, ``Pelosi Still Receives CIA Briefings, But Won't

Say If They're Truthful'' stated, ``She refused to answer

when asked whether or not she believes intelligence

professionals are still lying to her.'';

Whereas national and international media reports on this

controversy have damaged the reputation of the House by

raising questions about whether the effectiveness of

congressional oversight may have been undermined through

false or misleading statements by intelligence officials; and

Whereas in order to safeguard the reputation of the House

it is imperative to reconcile as soon as possible the

aforementioned contradictory statements by Speaker Pelosi and

CIA Director Panetta: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That--

(1) a Select Subcommittee of the Permanent Select Committee

on Intelligence shall be established to review and verify the

accuracy of the Speaker's aforementioned public statements;

(2) the Select Subcommittee shall be comprised of four

members of the full committee, two appointed by the chairman

of the committee and two by its ranking minority member;

(3) The subcommittee shall have the same powers to obtain

testimony and documents pursuant to subpoena authorized under

clause 2(m) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House; and,

(4) the Select Subcommittee report its findings and

recommendations to the House not later than sixty calendar

days after adoption of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, that is the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I therefore offer the resolution. I assume it has to be read, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is very similar--it is not exactly the same, but it is similar to a resolution we presented a few weeks ago. It is presented again for one simple reason. The reason that this is before here is still that there is no cloture on this particular issue.

In ``A Man for All Seasons,'' Sir Thomas More may have used silence as his legal argument that silence denotes consent; but in a political setting as we are here, silence is not a solution. In an era in which perception is the same thing as reality, silence does not solve the problem, and indeed, harms are still there.

If an agency of government intentionally misleads Congress--and the CIA has denied they did that. If they intentionally mislead Congress or a Member, an important or a significant Member of Congress, it creates a problem for the integrity of the House as a whole.

If the data we are to receive is in question, then the solutions and the arguments we derive are equally in question, and that becomes an untenable decision. All of our decisions, therefore, become suspect. There is only one solution to this, and it is the same solution that we have said before:

If we don't want this issue to simply be subject to political maneuverings, establish a bipartisan committee--two Republicans, two Democrats. Make that committee a subset of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, so they understand the verbiage, so they understand the questions, so they don't have to have a lot of time to be brought up to speed.

If you have that kind of committee, their report will, by the very nature of the makeup of that committee, not be subject to political spin, and we may be able to move on. That's the important part. It is the integrity of the House that is in question here, and that needs to be answered so decisions of this House will be considered without any other kind of question or implication.

Now, as we are starting the appropriations process, it becomes an ideal time in which any kind of solution we may wish to impose on this particular situation should be before the House and should be done.

Mr. Speaker, I do this as a former speaker in Utah where several times you had to stand up to defend the integrity of the institution. This is about the integrity of the institution, to make sure we were not intentionally misled by an agency of government.

I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair.