```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 228 Laid on Table in House (LTH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 228

           Raising a question of the privileges of the House.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 10, 2009

  Mr. Flake submitted the following resolution; which was laid on the 
                                 table

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
           Raising a question of the privileges of the House.

Whereas The Hill reported on February 10, 2009, that ``a top defense-lobbying 
        firm'' that ``specializes in obtaining earmarks in the defense budget 
        for a long list of clients'' was ``recently raided by the FBI.'';
Whereas the Associated Press reported on February 25, 2009 that the ``FBI 
        searched the lobbying firm ... and the residence of its founder ... .'';
Whereas The Hill reported on March 4, 2009, that the firm ``has given $3.4 
        million to 284 Members of Congress'';
Whereas Politico reported on February 13, 2009, that ``federal investigators are 
        asking about thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to lawmakers 
        as part of an effort to determine whether they were illegal `straw man' 
        donations.'';
Whereas Roll Call reported on February 20, 2009, that they have ``located tens 
        of thousands of dollars worth of [the raided firm]-linked donations that 
        are improperly reported in the FEC database.'';
Whereas Roll Call also reported that ``tracking Federal Election Commission 
        records of campaign donations attributed to [the firm] is a comedy of 
        errors, misinformation and mysteries, providing more questions than 
        answers about how much money the lobbying firm actually raised for 
        Congressional campaigns.'';
Whereas CQ Today reported on February 19, 2009, 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;
Whereas The Hill reported on February 10, 2009, that in 2008 clients of this 
        firm had ``received $299 million worth of earmarks, according to 
        Taxpayers for Common Sense.'';
Whereas The Hill reported on February 23, 2009, that ``clients of a defense 
        lobby shop under investigation are continuing to score earmarks from 
        their patrons in Congress, despite the firm being on the verge of 
        shutting its doors permanently'' and that several of the firm's clients 
        ``are slated to receive earmarks worth at least $8 million in the 
        omnibus spending bill funding the federal government through the rest of 
        fiscal 2009 ... .'';
Whereas the Washington Post reported on June 13, 2008, in a story describing 
        increased earmark spending in the House version of the fiscal year 2009 
        defense authorization bill that ``many of the earmarks serve as no-bid 
        contracts for the recipients.'';
Whereas the Associated Press reported on February 25, 2009, that ``the Justice 
        Department's fraud section is overseeing an investigation into whether 
        [the firm] reimbursed some employees for campaign contributions to 
        members of Congress who requested the projects.'';
Whereas Politico reported on February 12, 2009, that ``several sources said FBI 
        agents have spent months laying the groundwork for their current 
        investigation, including conducting research on earmarks and campaign 
        contributions.'';
Whereas House Resolution 189, instructing the Committee on Standards of Official 
        Conduct to investigate the relationship between earmark requests already 
        made by Members and the source and timing of past campaign 
        contributions, was considered as a privileged matter on February 25, 
        2009, and the motion to table the measure was agreed to by recorded vote 
        of 226 to 182 with 12 Members voting present;
Whereas House Resolution 212, instructing the Committee on Standards of Official 
        Conduct to investigate the relationship between earmark requests already 
        made by Members on behalf of clients of the raided firm and the source 
        and timing of past campaign contributions, was considered as a 
        privileged matter on March 3, 2009, and the motion to table the measure 
        was agreed to by recorded vote of 222 to 181 with 14 Members voting 
        present;
Whereas the reportedly fraudulent nature of campaign contributions originating 
        from the raided 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; and
Whereas the fact that cases are being investigated by the Justice Department 
        does not preclude the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct from 
        taking investigative steps: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That (a) the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
or an investigative subcommittee of the committee established jointly 
by the chair and ranking minority member, shall immediately begin an 
investigation into the relationship between earmark requests for fiscal 
year 2009 already made by Members on behalf of clients of the raided 
firm and the source and timing of past campaign contributions related 
to such requests.
     (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.
                                 <all>
```