IV 

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.’’; 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 228 LTH 

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 authorizaVerDate Nov 24 2008 23:27 Mar 10, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR228.LTH HR228

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 228 LTH 

tion 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 reVerDate Nov 24 2008 23:27 Mar 10, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR228.LTH HR228

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
4 

•HRES 228 LTH 

ports 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 

1 Resolved, That (a) the Committee on Standards of 

2 Official Conduct, or an investigative subcommittee of the 

3 committee established jointly by the chair and ranking mi4 nority member, shall immediately begin an investigation 

5 into the relationship between earmark requests for fiscal 

6 year 2009 already made by Members on behalf of clients 

7 of the raided firm and the source and timing of past cam8 paign contributions related to such requests. 

9 (b) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 

10 shall submit a report of its findings to the House of Rep11 resentatives within 2 months after the date of adoption 

12 of this resolution. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS