[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9099-9100]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1930
   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 earmark 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

[[Page 9100]]

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 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, 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 $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 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.

                          ____________________