[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 40 (Friday, March 6, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H3066-H3067]
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. Madam 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:


[[Page H3067]]


       Whereas The Hill reported on February 10, 2009, that ``a 
     top defense-lobbying firm'' that ``specializes in obtaining 
     earmarks in the defense budget for a long list of clients'' 
     was ``recently raided by the FBI.'';
       Whereas the Associated Press reported on February 25, 2009 
     that the ``FBI searched the lobbying firm . . . and the 
     residence of its founder . . .'';
       Whereas The Hill reported on March 4, 2009, that the firm 
     ``has given $3.4 million to 284 Members of Congress'';
       Whereas Politico reported on February 13, 2009, that 
     ``federal investigators are asking about thousands of dollars 
     in campaign contributions to lawmakers as part of an effort 
     to determine whether they were illegal `straw man' 
     donations.'';
       Whereas Roll Call reported on February 20, 2009, that they 
     have ``located tens of thousands of dollars worth of [the 
     raided firm]-linked donations that are improperly reported in 
     the FEC database.'';
       Whereas Roll Call also reported that ``tracking Federal 
     Election Commission records of campaign donations attributed 
     to [the firm] is a comedy of errors, misinformation and 
     mysteries, providing more questions than answers about how 
     much money the lobbying firm actually raised for 
     Congressional campaigns.'';
       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 The Hill reported on February 10, 2009, that in 
     2008 clients of this firm had ``received $299 million worth 
     of earmarks, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.'';
       Whereas The Hill reported on February 23, 2009, that 
     ``clients of a defense lobby shop under investigation are 
     continuing to score earmarks from their patrons in Congress, 
     despite the firm being on the verge of shutting its doors 
     permanently'' and that several of the firm's clients ``are 
     slated to receive earmarks worth at least $8 million in the 
     omnibus spending bill funding the federal government through 
     the rest of fiscal 2009 . . .'';
       Whereas the Washington Post reported on June 13, 2008, in a 
     story describing increased earmark spending in the House 
     version of the fiscal year 2009 defense authorization bill 
     that ``many of the earmarks serve as no-bid contracts for the 
     recipients.'';
       Whereas the Associated Press reported on February 25, 2009, 
     that ``the Justice Department's fraud section is overseeing 
     an investigation into whether [the firm] reimbursed some 
     employees for campaign contributions to members of Congress 
     who requested the projects.'';
       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 House Resolution 189, instructing the Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct to investigate the relationship 
     between earmark requests already made by Members and the 
     source and timing of past campaign contributions, was 
     considered as a privileged matter on February 25, 2009, and 
     the motion to table the measure was agreed to by recorded 
     vote of 226 to 182 with 12 Members voting present;
       Whereas House Resolution 212, instructing the Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct to investigate the relationship 
     between earmark requests already made by Members on behalf of 
     clients of the raided firm and the source and timing of past 
     campaign contributions, was considered as a privileged matter 
     on March 3, 2009, and the motion to table the measure was 
     agreed to by recorded vote of 222 to 181 with 14 Members 
     voting present;
       Whereas the reportedly fraudulent nature of campaign 
     contributions originating from the raided 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; and
       Whereas the fact that cases are being investigated by the 
     Justice Department does not preclude the Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct from taking investigative 
     steps: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That (a) the Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct, or an investigative subcommittee of the committee 
     established jointly by the chair and ranking minority member, 
     shall immediately begin an investigation into the 
     relationship between earmark requests for fiscal year 2009 
     already made by Members on behalf of clients of the raided 
     firm and the source and timing of past campaign contributions 
     related to such requests.
        (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.

                          ____________________