IV 111th CONGRESS 1st Session H. RES. 295 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES March 30, 2009 Mr. Flake submitted the following resolution; which was laid on the table RESOLUTION Raising a question of the privileges of the House.

Whereas The Hill reported that a prominent lobbying firm specializing in obtaining defense earmarks for its clients, the subject of a federal investigation into potentially corrupt political contributions, has given $3.4 million in political donations to no less than 284 Members of Congress; Whereas multiple press reports have noted questions related to campaign contributions made by or on behalf of the firm; including questions related to straw man contributions, the reimbursement of employees for political giving, pressure on clients to give, a suspicious pattern of giving, and the timing of donations relative to legislative activity; Whereas Roll Call has taken note of the timing of contributions from employees of the 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.; Whereas CQ Today specifically noted a Member getting $25,000 in campaign contribution money from [the founder of the firm] and his relatives right after his subcommittee approved its spending bill in 2005.; Whereas the Associated Press noted that Members received campaign contributions from employees of the firm around the time they requested earmarks for companies represented by the firm; Whereas the Associated Press highlighted the huge amounts of political donations from the firm and its clients to select Members and noted that those political donations have followed a distinct pattern: The giving is especially heavy in March, which is prime time for submitting written earmark requests.; Whereas clients of the 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 of the firm’s offices and Justice Department investigation into the firm was well known; Whereas the Associated Press reported that the FBI says the investigation is continuing, highlighting the close ties between special-interest spending provisions known as earmarks and the raising of campaign cash.; and Whereas the persistent media attention focused on questions about the nature and timing of campaign contributions related to the firm, 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: Now, therefore, be it

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 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.