[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 428 Laid on Table in House (LTH)]







110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 428

           Raising a question of the privileges of the House.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 22, 2007

 Mr. Rogers of Michigan submitted the following resolution; which was 
                           laid on the table

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
           Raising a question of the privileges of the House.

Whereas the Code of Official Conduct provides that a Member ``may not condition 
        the inclusion of language to provide funding for a Congressional earmark 
        ... on any vote cast by another member'';
Whereas Chairman Reyes filed the Report to accompany the bill H.R. 2082, the 
        Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008;
Whereas the report states that, with respect to the requirements of clause 9 of 
        House Rule XXI, ``The following table provides the list of such 
        provisions included in the bill or report,'' and includes a table of 26 
        items identifying ``Requesting Member,'' ``Subject,'' and ``Dollar 
        Amount (in Thousands)'';
Whereas the referenced table includes an item denoted as: Requesting Member, Mr. 
        Murtha; Subject, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT 
        ACCOUNT--National Drug Intelligence Center; Dollar Amount, $23 million;
Whereas the Gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Rogers, offered and voted for a motion 
        to recommit the bill to change the provisions of the aforementioned 
        Murtha earmark during its consideration in the House;
Whereas as a result of Mr. Rogers' motion and vote on the Murtha earmark, the 
        Gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha subsequently threatened to 
        withdraw support for earmarks providing funding for projects located in 
        the Gentleman from Michigan's district;
Whereas on May 17, 2007, in the House Chamber, the Gentleman from Pennsylvania 
        stated, in a loud voice words to the effect, to the Gentleman from 
        Michigan as a result of offering and voting for the motion to recommit, 
        ``I hope you don't have any earmarks in the defense appropriation bill 
        because they are gone and you will not get any earmarks now and 
        forever.'';
Whereas the Gentleman from Michigan responded, in words to the effect, ``this is 
        not the way we do things here and is that supposed to make me afraid of 
        you?'';
Whereas the Gentleman from Pennsylvania raised his voice, pointed his finger and 
        stated, in words to the effect, ``that's the way I do it.'';
Whereas the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) is the ninth most senior 
        member of Congress, whose seniority ranks him over 426 of his 433 
        colleagues in the House;
Whereas the gentleman from Pennsylvania chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee 
        on Defense;
Whereas the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the second-ranking and 
        second longest serving Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, has 
        been described in numerous media accounts as a master of the legislative 
        process and an expert on earmarks; and
Whereas the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has stated that he is a 
        former member of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
        whose members are among the most knowledgeable in the House concerning 
        the ethical obligations of Members of Congress: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the Member from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha has been 
guilty of a violation of the Code of Official Conduct and merits the 
reprimand of the House for the same.
                                 <all>