PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.On motion to refer Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 397 - 0, 12 Present ) (Roll No. 131).
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 18, 2010
Requires the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to report to the House of Representatives, with respect to the activities addressed in its report of February 26, 2010 (regarding possible connections between PMA Group campaign contributions and specific earmarks), on: (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.
People & committees
Rep. Flake, Jeff [R-AZ-6] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
On motion to refer Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 397 - 0, 12 Present ) (Roll No. 131).
House roll call 131 · Individual votesMOTION TO REFER PRIVILEGED RESOLUTION - Mr. McGovern moved to refer the privileged resolution to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and the Chair recognized Mr. McGovern under the 1 hour rule. Subsequently, without objection the previous question was ordered on the motion to refer. The Chair put the question on the motion to refer and by voice vote announced the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Flake demanded the yeas and nays on the motion to refer. (consideration: CR H1623)
Mr. McGovern moved to refer to Standards of Official Conduct.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H1622-1623; text of measure as introduced: CR H1622-1623)
QUESTION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE - Mr. Flake rose to a question of the privileges of the House and offered a resolution. The Chair directed the Clerk to report the resolution. The Clerk completed the reading of H.Res. 1193 and the Chair announced that the resolution met the required threshold under the rule.
Referred to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 6, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.Res.1193 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.Res.1193 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.Res.1193 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.Res.1193 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.