Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(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:

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.

Mr. Speaker, a week ago I introduced a privileged resolution asking the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to report back to the House as to the extent of their investigation into the PMA scandal. A motion to refer that resolution to the committee was adopted unanimously. Every Member in this body voted for it a week ago; yet here we are a week later and we haven't heard anything from the Standards Committee as to the extent of their investigation.

I'll be introducing this resolution again today, and I hope that we can finally get an answer as to the extent of the investigation into the PMA scandal.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(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:

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: Now 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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.

The Clerk will report the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, when the President signed the health care reform bill into law, he noted, ``The overheated rhetoric of reform will finally confront the reality of reform.'' He's right.

Here is the reality: Insurance companies will now be required to accept children with preexisting conditions and carry adults up to the age of 26 on their parents' policies. New policies will have to cover preventative care without copays. Such requirements may or may not be in the public interest, but health insurance that is no longer a hedge against risk cannot accurately be called health insurance. Health insurance companies are now more like public utilities.

Keep in mind that individual mandates requiring the purchase of insurance to broaden the pool will not kick in for 4 years. New competition is not required, nor is there any serious effort to deal with legal liability. In other words, there is no downward pressure on cost, only upward pressure.

Madam Speaker, in this body we can pass all the laws that we want, but we cannot suspend the laws of economics, nor can we phase them in. Americans should now be prepared for higher premiums.

That, Madam Speaker, is the reality of reform.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Listening to this debate in my office, I just had to come down here because it sounds like this debate is taking place in a vacuum here, like we didn't do anything else this past week. It's been noted that we're providing extra money for FEMA, some for projects that are in the pipeline already, some for disasters that we know will occur. You could put that aside and realize that we're spending I think it's $600 million--$600 million, new money, every dime of which will be borrowed. Because we're running a deficit, every dime will be borrowed.

Now you may say, ``All this is being taken from the stimulus.'' We borrowed the stimulus. We borrowed the stimulus money. We are borrowing nearly 40 percent of the money that we're spending here at the Federal level. So they'll say, ``Oh, yes. This is being taken from another program that's already funded.'' But you have to realize we're borrowing that money, too. So $600 million to create temporary jobs for kids in the summertime, apparently, with no notion that we may have put a lot of people out of work with what we just did earlier this week.

You know, we pass a lot of laws here. We're good at that. But we aren't very good at suspending the laws of economics. We can't do that. We can pretend that we can, but we can't do it. We can't suspend the laws of economics, and we can't phase them in, either. So when you announce that you're going to tax investment capital, that means there's less investment capital to actually invest in job creating activities. So the job creating sector is smaller than it was before. Whenever you take money into government from the job creating sector, when you tax investment capital, like the health care reform that we did, that means there's going to be less capital for job creation.

Also, when you look at this health care bill itself, the President said when he signed the bill into law that the time for overheated rhetoric is over and that the rhetoric will now be confronted with reality. Well, let me tell you what the reality is right now. The reality is higher insurance premiums. So if it's not bad enough out there with a lack of jobs, Americans all over are going to face much higher insurance premiums by virtue of the legislation we just passed. You have to understand that all of the pressures right now are to drive costs upward. There's no downward pressure economically on insurance premiums at the moment because any cost controls either don't exist at all; there's no medical liability reform; and broadening the pool of people who will come into any insurance pool doesn't happen or is not on the mandatory side several years from now.

All you have are requirements that preexisting conditions for children now be covered; that individuals, adults up

to age 26 can stay on their parents' policy; preventative care now has to be covered with no deductibles or copays. Now those may or may not be good policies. That's not what I'm arguing here. But when you do that, insurance is no longer a hedge against risk. We've just obliterated what insurance is supposed to be, and insurance companies will now be treated like public utilities where government simply regulates them. And all the pressure is upward. There's no downward economic pressure on price. So what we'll see in the next several months is insurance premiums jumping up.

I just want to say right now, we shouldn't be surprised when that happens because we can't suspend the laws of economics. We can pass laws, but there are certain laws that are there that we can't change, and those will be slapping us in the face here soon. So when we come to the floor, it's all well and good to talk about FEMA funding. But I wish we would talk a little about $600 million also that's going to be spent--borrowed--whether it's taken from another existing program or not, we're borrowing that money as well. We're borrowing more money, adding to the deficit, adding to the debt.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentlelady for yielding. What got me to the floor was not to talk about FEMA, but when the gentleman brought out a chart about the economy and jobs, that is what I wanted to talk about.

The gentleman mentioned preexisting conditions. What I said was this may or may not be good public policy to deal with that. I think it is, but we ought to deal with it in a responsible way. The Republican plan was to assist jobs in having high-risk pools for those with preexisting conditions to go into. And that way you simply don't even pretend you are suspending the laws of economics and telling the insurance companies you can't raise your rates because we have suspended the laws of economics. You recognize that is a cost and that is a subsidy that will have to be borne, but you do it honestly, not this way, not the way we did it by saying, hey, we are just going to pass a law, have everybody covered, and assume we have suspended the laws of economics and insurance rates will not go up.

The gentleman mentioned that insurance rates have been rising over the years; you bet they have. And part of the reason for which is we have shielded insurance companies from competition. We don't allow them to sell insurance across State lines. And nowhere in this legislation do we allow them to do that. We also don't allow individuals to have the same purchasing power that companies have so you can't as an individual with pretax dollars go out

and shop for health insurance. So we have shielded them from competition, and of course rates are going to go up. But they are going to go up rapidly now because we have imposed these costs upon them.

Again, when we talk about jobs, this seem to be the mantra now. If we can't allow the job-creating sector to create jobs by having a reasonable tax and regulatory environment out there, then we are just going to create government jobs. So that is what we are doing here. We are going to be borrowing $600 million because even if it is in another program, we are going to be borrowing that money, too. We are going to be borrowing $600 million and saying to people, we are going to create more temporary government jobs throughout the summer. That is not the answer to our economic woes.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We're all aware of the special provisions or earmarks in the bill: the Cornhusker kickback, the Louisiana purchase, the Gator aid. These earmarks, though, apart from the role they played in greasing the skids for this bill, are probably the least offensive part of the legislation.

We desperately need health care reform, reform that lowers costs and improves quality through competition and market discipline. But such measures, such as allowing the purchase of health care across State lines and allowing individuals to purchase insurance with pre-tax dollars, are absent from the bill. Instead, the bill contains increases in taxes, mandates and bureaucracy that will only serve to further shield the health care industry from true competition--competition that is so desperately needed.

Mr. Speaker, without this bill, the fiscal challenges that we face are incredibly steep. With this bill, they are almost insurmountable.

There will come a day that the piper will have to be paid. We have shown ourselves unwilling to fess up to the challenges today. We can only hope that those elected this November and in the years to come will show more courage than we've shown today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health care bill.

Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Many of us are confused about the last vote we took. We just need to see if we have it right.

We had the vote to include TRICARE for life because it is not included in the Senate bill that we will vote on tomorrow. Is that correct?

Madam Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Speaker, it is our understanding that the Senate bill did not include coverage for TRICARE for life in the vote that we will take tomorrow. And so we are amending a bill that hasn't been passed yet. Is that correct?

I apologize. I meant to say TRICARE, not TRICARE for life.

It is our understanding here that the Senate bill that we will vote on tomorrow does not include coverage for TRICARE. Is that correct?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would like to echo some of the comments that have already been made here. There seems to be no recognition at all that we have a $12 trillion debt. We are paying $600 million a day to service the debt that we have, and yet we are going to be adding, this bill authorizes $23.9 million just in FY 2011. That is more than the President has recommended for all of the education programs at NOAA. He has recommended that we zero some out, but we have doubled down and said let's increase, by a factor of 100 percent, everything we are doing over there in terms of education.

The gentleman from Utah pointed out that we commission these reports, and then they come back to us and we simply don't follow their recommendations. It has been pointed out that they weren't criticizing the programs that we are actually plussing up funding for; but mark my words, when the President's recommendations come to Congress to zero out some of these programs, we will ignore them and say we can't zero out those programs just because a report says they are not working.

I remember one that we dealt with a while ago. I think it was the DARE program. We commissioned a report, and it came back and said this program is not working at all. It is not delivering the benefits that you say should be delivered. What did we do? I think we doubled funding for it that year instead of saying, all right, recognizing maybe we are not spending money wisely, let's not spend it. Let's pay down the deficit a little or pay down the debt. Let's not increase the deficit. And yet we get these reports, we throw them on a shelf, and we never see them again. That is not the proper oversight we should be doing.

Congress, as we have been going through this earmark debate, we hear Congress say that we are jealously guarding our congressional prerogative. We have the power of the purse; we have the power to earmark. We do have the power of the purse. We have the power to appropriate; and what bothers me more than anything is we spend so much time on the 1 percent we earmark and ignore the other 99 percent that is spent by the Federal agencies. Instead of offering true oversight, and when we get reports saying programs don't work, then following those reports and say, We are not going to fund these programs any more, instead, we plus up year after year after year until our deficits are exploding and our debt is exploding. We cannot continue to do this. We cannot continue to go on this path.

I will be offering an amendment in a couple of minutes that will simply say that none of the programs that are authorized in this bill should be earmarked. That is a start, because often we will establish these competitive grant programs and, within a couple of years, they are all filled up with congressional earmarks and no one can even compete. I assume that amendment will be adopted. That is a good first start.

Still, we have to look at the overall impact of what we are doing here. We are spending $23.9 million, and the total over 10 years is $150 billion or so that we are authorizing in new spending, every dime of which we spend we are borrowing. We have a deficit of over a trillion dollars. We have deficits as far as the eye can see. We are scheduled to triple the debt just in a few years, and yet we are authorizing new programs, more spending, to add to this deficit that we already have. Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to do this.

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

I thank the Chair. I just have to say something about the discussion that just went on. I guess only in this body can it be said that we are going to spend nearly a trillion dollars and pay down the deficit somehow, or pay down the debt over 10 years. When the CBO was figuring the savings or costs of this document, the health care bill, they have to assume what Congress says it will do, Congress will actually do. In this bill I think we are saying that we are going to be cutting $500 billion out of Medicare. Now, who among us really believes that will happen? I can tell you nobody out there does. Nobody really believes that will happen. It wouldn't happen if we managed the bill on our side and said we were going to do it or on the other side of the aisle. But CBO has to score it as if we are going to follow through on our promises.

That is the problem you get into in believing some kind of CBO score that says we are going to pay down the debt over 10 years by spending a trillion dollars more. Now, you can say we are going to increase taxes, but you don't really want to say that. But there is a lot of that in here as well. So I would just encourage anybody who is watching this debate to actually look at the argument here. It is being said that we are going to pay down the debt by nearly a trillion dollars over the next 10 years, or over a trillion dollars, by spending another trillion dollars. That may make sense to us here, but it shouldn't make sense to anybody else.

On the substance of this amendment, this amendment should be noncontroversial. This similar amendment has been adopted on a bipartisan basis on other programs that we have authorized. This bill before us, H.R. 3644, is to establish education and watershed programs that advance environmental literacy. This bill creates a competitive grant program titled the National Environmental Literacy Grant Program. This amendment would simply ensure that the new grant program is not earmarked by Members of Congress in the future.

Unfortunately, we talk a lot about getting control over earmarks. There are proposals before the Congress this year, gratefully, on the Republican side to have an overall moratorium, and on the Democratic side to at least restrict earmarks somewhat. I hope we follow through on these. But it is good to adopt these kind of amendments to these kind of bills to ensure that grant programs that are established, if we are going to fund them, they should go for their intended purpose.

The problem is too often in the past when grant programs like this have been established, then they are simply earmarked by Members of Congress, and those hoping to apply for those grants in the future simply have no money in the account to draw on.

Let me give a couple examples. FEMA's National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program is a competitive grant program that was designed to, quote, ``save lives and reduce property damage by providing funds for hazard mitigation planning, acquisition, and relocation of structures out of the floodplain.'' The fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security appropriations bill appropriated $100 million for the program. Almost $25 million of that was earmarked for projects in Members' districts. That meant that only three-quarters of the money was available. Believe me, go a couple years in the future and all of that money will likely be gone because Members of Congress have earmarked it.

In some cases, these projects are earmarked when the applicant has applied for the grant and didn't get it. The grant wasn't deemed worthy, and so the Member of Congress steps in and simply earmarks it. There may have been a good reason why it wasn't deemed worthy.

But the thing is if we are going to establish these programs as competitive grant programs, then we better either trust the agencies that they are going to do it right or we provide the proper oversight to ensure that they do, instead of running a parallel track program where we Members of Congress say, they don't do it right over there in the agency so we're going to do that ourselves. That is not proper oversight. That is just handing out Federal largesse. And we shouldn't be doing that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Can I inquire as to the time remaining?

I thank the Chair, and I thank the gentlelady for agreeing to support the amendment. It is important that we ensure if we are going to establish these programs--I don't think we ought to establish them, frankly. I think we are overspent, we are overtaxed. We shouldn't put this additional burden. But if we are going to do it, certainly we ought to ensure that it goes to its intended purpose. That is what this amendment is for. I thank all for supporting the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, you know, it's often said around this place that nobody cares about process. It's only the substance of the policy. But the process lends itself to the substance. And bad process equals bad policy, especially when it's done over and over again.

Now we've seen over the past couple of years a shrinking of the ability of the minority party to actually come to the floor, offer the amendments it would like to offer, actually have an impact on the policy debate. Now, that's process. But it has an impact on the policy.

Over time, if a majority simply asserts its rights under the House rules to minimize debate or to have a vote without having a vote, to deem something through, if you do that kind of thing continually, you're going to get a bad product. And I would suggest that the health care reform bill that we will vote on, maybe, or we will deem later this weekend, is a bad product, and it's partly because of a flawed process.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to commend my colleague from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick) for introducing this legislation. This would simply turn over to the Treasury for deficit reduction anything left over in our account that is used to run our offices. This is good legislation. It should move forward. I must say, however, that we should go much further than this.

Part of the reason there is money in a lot of people's accounts to turn back is that we are given more than we need, typically because most Members

choose to send out thinly veiled campaign mail, I would assert, under the frank, or using taxpayer dollars. If I were to hold up in an election year--now there are blackout dates, so you can't send too close to an election. But still, spending goes up considerably in Member offices during a campaign year or an election year. If I were to hold up one of my campaign pieces of mail that I pay for with my campaign and something that's sent out that has the little words on there, Paid for at taxpayer expense, they're both four color, they're both colorful, nice pieces, lauding the Member of Congress for what he or she is doing, I defy anybody to tell the difference between regular campaign mail paid by campaign funds and somebody's taxpayer mailings. We shouldn't be doing this. And it seems that we get in our offices just an increased amount that is used because nearly every office does it.

We ought to lower that amount that every office receives or in some way ban the use of these colorful four-color mailings that go out. I am certainly not asserting that Members of Congress shouldn't be able to use the frank, and a lot of the mass mailings that go out are simply to inform constituents of town hall meetings or other events that are coming up. That is proper and right. But when Members of Congress are able to send out what is basically campaign mail at taxpayer expense, that's simply not right, and it's a practice that we ought to get away from.

I should note that over the past several years, it seems to be more blatant and more blatant and more blatant. There are certain words you cannot use describing yourself. There are things that are supposedly in there to prevent this from being blatant campaign mail. But again, if I held up two pieces, one piece of campaign literature and one piece mailed at taxpayer expense, I think the average constituent would have a hard time telling the difference. And that money that we save from getting rid of that practice should be applied against the deficit as well. Again, I thank the gentlelady for introducing this legislation. I hope that in the future we can go further.

Madam Speaker, one of my favorite things to do is go to a local high school and talk to government classes. For the past 10 years that I've been doing this, I have always told them, there are certain things that are done in the House that are there to protect the minority. One is during appropriation bills: any Member can bring any amendment to the floor on anything they want to that is germane to the bill, and the leadership can't stop them, even their own party or the other party.

This past year, I wasn't able to say that anymore because for the first time in the history of this institution, every appropriation bill that came to the floor was brought under a closed rule so only the amendments that the majority wanted to be offered could be offered.

Something similar is happening here. All of us have told classes that we have taught that your history books are right, if a bill passes the House and a different bill passes the Senate, the House will have to vote on it again. But here we're being told, no, you don't have to do that anymore. You can deem it passed. It just magically appears back in the Senate without having a vote here in the House.

Our institution, this institution, the people's institution, deserves better than that.

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.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I hereby give notice of my intent to offer 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) what witnesses were interviewed, (2) what, if

any,

subpoenas were issued in the course of their investigation,

and (3) what documents were reviewed and their availability

for public review.