[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 83 (Monday, May 21, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H5513-H5514]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NOTICE OF INTENTION TO OFFER RESOLUTION RAISING A QUESTION OF THE 
                        PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE

  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a), 
paragraph 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 my resolution is as follows:

                               H. Res. --

       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;

[[Page H5514]]

       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.

                              {time}  1900

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the 
floor by a Member other than the majority leader or the minority leader 
as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate precedence 
only at a time designated by the Chair within 2 legislative days after 
the resolution is properly noticed.
  Pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the 
gentleman from Michigan will appear in the Record at this point.
  The Chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution 
constitutes a question of privilege. That determination will be made at 
the time designated for consideration of the resolution.

                          ____________________