[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 13]
[House]
[Page 18343]
[From the U.S. 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:

       Whereas, The Hill reported that a prominent lobbying firm, 
     founded by Mr. Paul Magliocchetti and 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, the New York Times noted that Mr. Magliocchetti 
     ``set up shop at the busy intersection between political 
     fund-raising and taxpayer spending, directing tens of 
     millions of dollars in contributions to lawmakers while 
     steering hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks 
     contracts back to his clients.''
       Whereas, a guest columnist recently highlighted in Roll 
     Call that ``. . . what [the firm's] example reveals most 
     clearly is the potentially corrupting link between campaign 
     contributions and earmarks. Even the most ardent earmarkers 
     should want to avoid the appearance of such a pay-to-play 
     system.''
       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, 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, after a cursory review, the fiscal year 2010 
     defense appropriations earmark list recently made available 
     includes at least seventy earmarks worth hundreds of millions 
     of dollars for former PMA clients.
       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 the Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct shall immediately establish an 
     investigative subcommittee and 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.

  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.

                          ____________________