[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1193 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1193

           Raising a question of the privileges of the House.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 18, 2010

              Mr. Flake submitted the following resolution

                             March 18, 2010

   By motion of the House, referred to the Committee on Standards of 
                            Official Conduct

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
           Raising a question of the privileges of the House.

Whereas, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct initiated an 
        investigation into allegations related to earmarks and campaign 
        contributions in the spring of 2009;
Whereas, on December 2, 2009, reports and findings in seven separate matters 
        involving the alleged connection between earmarks and campaign 
        contributions were forwarded by the Office of Congressional Ethics to 
        the Standards Committee;
Whereas, on February 26, 2010, the Standards Committee made public its report on 
        the matter wherein the Committee found, though a widespread perception 
        exists among corporations and lobbyists that campaign contributions 
        provide a greater chance of obtaining earmarks, there was no evidence 
        that Members or their staff considered contributions when requesting 
        earmarks;
Whereas, the Committee indicated that, with respect to the matters forwarded by 
        the Office of Congressional Ethics, neither the evidence cited in the 
        OCE's findings nor the evidence in the record before the Standards 
        Committee provided a substantial reason to believe that violations of 
        applicable standards of conduct occurred;
Whereas, the Office of Congressional Ethics is prohibited from reviewing 
        activities taking place prior to March of 2008 and lacks the authority 
        to subpoena witnesses and documents;
Whereas, for example, the Office of Congressional Ethics noted that in some 
        instances documents were redacted or specific information was not 
        provided and that, in at least one instance, they had reason to believe 
        a witness withheld information requested and did not identify what was 
        being withheld;
Whereas, the Office of Congressional Ethics also noted that they were able to 
        interview only six former employees of the PMA Group, with many former 
        employees refusing to consent to interviews and the OCE unable to obtain 
        evidence within PMA's possession;
Whereas, Roll Call noted that ``the committee report was five pages long and 
        included no documentation of any evidence collected or any interviews 
        conducted by the committee, beyond a statement that the investigation 
        `included extensive document reviews and interviews with numerous 
        witnesses.''' (Roll Call, March 8, 2010);
Whereas, it is unclear whether the Standards Committee included in their 
        investigation any activities that occurred prior to 2008;
Whereas, it is unclear whether the Standards Committee interviewed any Members 
        in the course of their investigation; and
Whereas, it is unclear whether the Standards Committee, in the course of their 
        investigation, initiated their own subpoenas or followed the Office of 
        Congressional Ethics recommendations to issue subpoenas: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That not later than seven days after the adoption of this 
resolution, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall report 
to the House of Representatives, with respect to the activities 
addressed in its report of February 26, 2010--
            (1) how many witnesses were interviewed;
            (2) how many, if any, subpoenas were issued in the course 
        of their investigation; and
            (3) what documents were reviewed and their availability for 
        public review.
                                 <all>