[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 38 (Tuesday, March 16, 2010)]
[House]
[Page H1474]
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. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I hereby 
give notice of my intent to offer a resolution raising a question of 
the privileges of the House.
  The form of the resolution is as follows:

       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.
       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. 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.

  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 Arizona 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.

                          ____________________