[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 46 (Tuesday, March 17, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H3446-H3447]
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, 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 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.

[[Page H3447]]

     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.
       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
       (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, 
     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.
       (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 
     the 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.

                          ____________________