[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 31 (Monday, February 23, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H1636-H1637]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NOTICE OF INTENTION TO OFFER RESOLUTION RAISING A QUESTION OF THE 
                        PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE

  Mr. FLAKE. 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 Roll Call reported on February 9, 2008, that the offices of a 
prominent lobbying firm had been raided by the FBI in November;
  Whereas The New York Times reported on February 10, 2009, that 
``Federal prosecutors are looking into the

[[Page H1637]]

possibility that a prominent lobbyist may have funneled bogus campaign 
contributions'' to Members of Congress;
  Whereas the Washington Post reported on February 14, 2009, that they 
``examined contributions that were reported as being made by the firm's 
employees and consultants, and found several people who were not 
registered lobbyists and did not work for the lobbying firm'';
  Whereas Roll Call reported on February 11, 2009, that ``the defense-
appropriations-focused lobbying shop that the FBI raided this 
November'' had in recent years ``spread millions of campaign 
contributions to lawmakers'';
  Whereas The Hill reported on February 10, 2009, that the raided firm 
``earned more than $14 million in lobbying revenue'' and ``specializes 
in obtaining earmarks in the defense budget for a long list of 
clients'';
  Whereas The Hill reported on February 10, 2009, that the 2008 clients 
of this firm had ``received $299 million worth of earmarks, according 
to Taxpayers for Common Sense'';
  Whereas CQ Today reported on February 19, 2009, 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;
  Whereas CQ Today also reported that ``Members who took responsibility 
for the firm's earmarks in that spending bill have, since 2001, 
accepted a cumulative $1,815,138 in campaign contributions from the 
firm's political action committee and employees'';
  Whereas Roll Call reported on February 19, 2009, that a bipartisan 
group of four Members have made plans to divest themselves of campaign 
contributions received from the raided firm;
  Whereas Politico reported on February 12, 2009, that ``several 
sources said FBI agents have spent months laying the groundwork for 
their current investigation, including conducting research on earmarks 
and campaign contributions'';
  Whereas numerous press reports and editorials have alleged several 
cases of influence peddling between Members of Congress and outside 
interests seeking Federal funding;
  Whereas such reports and editorials reflect public distrust and have 
raised inquiries and criticism about the integrity of congressional 
proceedings and the dignity of the institution; and
  Whereas the House of Representatives should respond to such claims 
and demonstrate integrity in its proceedings:
  Now, therefore, be it resolved that:
  (a) 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, is instructed to investigate the 
relationship between earmark requests already made by Members and the 
source and timing of past campaign contributions.
  (b) 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 this resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the 
floor by a Member other than the majority leader or the minority leader 
as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate precedence 
only at a time designated by the Chair within 2 legislative days after 
the resolution is properly noticed.
  Pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the 
gentleman from Arizona will appear in the Record at this point.
  The Chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution 
constitutes a question of privilege. That determination will be made at 
the time designated for consideration of the resolution.

                          ____________________