IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1287 

Raising a question of the privileges of the House. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 22, 2010 

Mr. FLAKE submitted the following resolution 

APRIL 22, 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 conVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:28 Apr 23, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR1287.RTH HR1287

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HRES 1287 RTH 

tributions 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); 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

HRES 1287 RTH 

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 

1 Resolved, That not later than seven days after the 

2 adoption of this resolution, the Committee on Standards 

3 of Official Conduct shall report to the House of Represent4 atives, with respect to the activities addressed in its report 

5 of February 26, 2010, (1) how many witnesses were inter6 viewed; (2) how many, if any, subpoenas were issued in 

7 the course of their investigation, and (3) what documents 

8 were reviewed and their availability for public review. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS