PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.On motion to refer Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 402 - 0, 17 Present (Roll no. 218). (consideration: CR H2816)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 22, 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: 402 - 0, 17 Present (Roll no. 218). (consideration: CR H2816)
House roll call 218 · Individual votesThe previous question on the motion to refer was ordered without objection. (consideration: CR H2816)
Mr. Hastings (FL) moved to refer to Standards of Official Conduct. (consideration: CR H2815)
On ordering the previous question Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 187 - 218, 16 Present (Roll no. 217). (consideration: CR H2815-2816)
House roll call 217 · Individual votesQUESTION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE - Mr. Flake rose to a question of the privileges of the House and offered a previously noticed privileged resolution. The Chair announced that the resolution qualified and directed the Clerk to report the resolution to the House.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H2815-2816; text of measure as introduced: CR H2815)
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.1287 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.1287 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.1287 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.1287 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.