[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 25, 2009)]
[House]
[Page H4003]
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 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.''
       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: 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 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.

                          ____________________