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 Mem-
ber ‘‘may not condition the inclusion of language to pro-
vide 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 require-
ments 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 identi-
fying ‘‘Requesting Member,’’ ‘‘Subject,’’ and ‘‘Dollar 
Amount (in Thousands)’’; 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
22:13 May 26, 2007
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR428.LTH
HR428
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
•HRES 428 LTH 
Whereas the referenced table includes an item denoted as: 
Requesting Member, Mr. Murtha; Subject, NATIONAL 
INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM COMMUNITY MAN-
AGEMENT 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 Gen-
tleman 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 appro-
priation 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 senior-
ity ranks him over 426 of his 433 colleagues in the 
House; 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
22:13 May 26, 2007
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR428.LTH
HR428
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
•HRES 428 LTH 
Whereas the gentleman from Pennsylvania chairs the Appro-
priations 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 nu-
merous 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 Com-
mittee on Standards of Official Conduct, whose members 
are among the most knowledgeable in the House con-
cerning 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 Offi-
cial Conduct and merits the reprimand of the House for 
the same. 
Æ 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
22:13 May 26, 2007
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\HR428.LTH
HR428
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS