IV 

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)’’; 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 428 LTH 

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; 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 428 LTH 

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 

1 Resolved, That the Member from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

2 Murtha has been guilty of a violation of the Code of Offi3 cial Conduct and merits the reprimand of the House for 

4 the same. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS