[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 265 Laid on Table in House (LTH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 265

           Raising a question of the privileges of the House.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 19, 2009

  Mr. Flake submitted the following resolution; which was laid on the 
                                 table

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
           Raising a question of the privileges of the House.

Whereas Mr. Paul Magliocchetti, a former Appropriations Committee staffer, 
        founded a prominent lobbying firm specializing in obtaining defense 
        earmarks for its clients and whose offices--along with the home of the 
        founder--were recently raided by the FBI;
Whereas the lobbying firm has shuttered its political action committee and is 
        scheduled to cease operations at the end of the month but, according to 
        the New York Times, ``not before leaving a detailed blueprint of how the 
        political money churn works in Congress'' and amid multiple press 
        reports that its founder is the focus of a Justice Department 
        investigation. (The New York Times, February 20, 2009);
Whereas CQ Today noted that the firm has ``charged $107 million in lobbying fees 
        from 2000 through 2008'' and estimates of political giving by to the 
        raided firm have varied in the press, with The Hill reporting that the 
        firm has given $3.4 million to no less than 284 Members of Congress. (CQ 
        Today, March 12, 2009; The Hill, March 4, 2009);
Whereas The Hill reported that Mr. Magliocchetti is ``under investigation for 
        [the firm's] campaign donations'', the Washington Post highlighted the 
        fact that Federal investigators are ``focused on allegations'' that he 
        ``may have reimbursed some of his staff to cover contributions made in 
        their names . . .'', and the New York Times noted that Federal 
        prosecutors are ``looking into the possibility'' that he ``may have 
        funneled bogus campaign contributions'' to Members of Congress. (The 
        Hill, February 20, 2009; The Washington Post, February 14, 2009; The New 
        York Times, February 11, 2009);
Whereas Roll Call reported on ``the suspicious pattern of giving established by 
        two Floridians who joined [the firm's] board of directors in 2006'' and 
        who, with ``no previous political profile . . . made more than $160,000 
        in campaign contributions over a three-year period'' and ``generally 
        contributed the same amount to the same candidate on the same days.'' 
        (Roll Call, February 20, 2009);
Whereas The Hill also reported that ``the embattled defense lobbyist who led the 
        FBI-raided [firm] has entered into a Florida-based business with two 
        associates whose political donations have come into question'' and is 
        listed in corporate records as being an executive with them in a 
        restaurant business. (The Hill, February 17, 2009);
Whereas Roll Call also reported that it had located tens of thousands of dollars 
        of donations linked to the firm that ``are improperly reported in the 
        FEC database.'' (Roll Call, February 20, 2009);
Whereas CQ Today recently reported that Mr. Magliocchetti and ``nine of his 
        relatives--two children, his daughter-in-law, his current wife, his ex-
        wife and his ex-wife's parents, sister, and brother-in-law'' provided 
        ``$1.5 million in political contributions from 2000 through 2008 as the 
        lobbyist's now-embattled firm helped clients win billions of dollars in 
        federal contracts'', with the majority of the family members 
        contributing in excess of $100,000 in that timeframe. (CQ Today, March 
        12, 2009);
Whereas CQ Today also noted that ``all but one of the family members were 
        recorded as working for [the firm] in campaign finance reports, and most 
        also were listed as having other employers'' and with other occupations 
        such as assistant ticket director for a Class A baseball team, a school 
        teacher, a police sergeant, and a homemaker. (CQ Today, March 12, 2009);
Whereas in addition to reports of allegations related to reimbursing employees 
        and the concerning patterns of contributions of business associates and 
        board members, ABC News reported that some former clients of the firm 
        ``have complained of being pressured by [the firm's] lobbyists to write 
        checks for politicians they either had no interest in or openly 
        opposed.'' (ABC News The Blotter, March 4, 2009);
Whereas Roll Call has taken note of the timing of contributions from employees 
        of Mr. Magliocchetti's firm and its clients when it reported that they 
        ``have provided thousands of dollars worth of campaign contributions to 
        key Members in close proximity to legislative activity, such as the 
        deadline for earmark request letters or passage of a spending bill.'' 
        (Roll Call, March 3, 2009);
Whereas reports of the firm's success in obtaining earmarks for their clients 
        are widespread, with CQ Today reporting that ``104 House members got 
        earmarks for projects sought by [clients of the firm] in the 2008 
        defense appropriations bills'', and that 87 percent of this bipartisan 
        group of Members received campaign contributions from the raided firm. 
        (CQ Today, February 19, 2009);
Whereas clients of Mr. Magliocchetti's firm received at least three hundred 
        million dollars worth of earmarks in fiscal year 2009 appropriations 
        legislation, including several that were approved even after news of the 
        FBI raid and Justice Department investigation into the firm and its 
        founder was well known;
Whereas the Chicago Tribune noted that the ties between a senior House 
        Appropriations Committee member and Mr. Magliocchetti's firm ``reflect a 
        culture of pay-to-play in Washington'', and ABC News indicated that 
        ``the firm's operations--millions out to lawmakers, hundreds of millions 
        back in earmarks for clients--have made it, for many observers, the 
        poster child for tacit `pay-to-play' politics . . .'' (Chicago Tribune, 
        March 2, 2009; ABC News The Blotter, March 4, 2009);
Whereas Roll Call has reported that a ``handful of lawmakers had already begun 
        to refund donations tied to'' the firm ``at the center of a federal 
        probe . . .'' (Roll Call, February 23, 2009);
Whereas the persistent media attention focused on questions about the nature and 
        timing of campaign contributions related to Mr. Magliocchetti, as well 
        as reports of the Justice Department conducting research on earmarks and 
        campaign contributions, raise concern about the integrity of 
        Congressional proceedings and the dignity of the institution; and
Whereas the fact that cases are being investigated by the Justice Department 
        does not preclude the Committee on Standards from taking investigative 
        steps: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That--
            (1) the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, or a 
        subcommittee of the committee designated by the committee and 
        its members appointed by the chairman and ranking member, shall 
        immediately begin an investigation into the relationship 
        between the source and timing of past campaign contributions to 
        Members of the House related to the founder of the raided firm 
        and earmark requests made by Members of the House on behalf of 
        clients of the raided firm; and
            (2) the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall 
        submit a report of its findings to the House of Representatives 
        within 2 months after the date of adoption of the resolution.
                                 <all>