[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 49 (Monday, March 23, 2009)]
[House]
[Page H3719]
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, 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 also noted that Members 
     received campaign contributions from employees of the firm 
     ``around the time they requested'' earmarks for companies 
     represented by the firm.
       Whereas, clients of the firm received at least $300 million 
     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 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 this 
     institution.
       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 
     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.
       (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.

                          ____________________