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 res-
idence 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 ‘‘fed-
eral investigators are asking about thousands of dollars 
in campaign contributions to lawmakers as part of an ef-
fort to determine whether they were illegal ‘straw man’ 
donations.’’; 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
23:27 Mar 10, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR228.LTH
HR228
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
•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 re-
ported in the FEC database.’’; 
Whereas Roll Call also reported that ‘‘tracking Federal Elec-
tion Commission records of campaign donations attrib-
uted 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 appropria-
tions 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 ‘‘cli-
ents of a defense lobby shop under investigation are con-
tinuing to score earmarks from their patrons in Con-
gress, 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 govern-
ment 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 authoriza-
VerDate 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
•HRES 228 LTH 
tion bill that ‘‘many of the earmarks serve as no-bid con-
tracts 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] reim-
bursed some employees for campaign contributions to 
members of Congress who requested the projects.’’; 
Whereas Politico reported on February 12, 2009, that ‘‘sev-
eral sources said FBI agents have spent months laying 
the groundwork for their current investigation, including 
conducting research on earmarks and campaign contribu-
tions.’’; 
Whereas House Resolution 189, instructing the Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate the rela-
tionship 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 rela-
tionship 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 re-
corded vote of 222 to 181 with 14 Members voting 
present; 
Whereas the reportedly fraudulent nature of campaign con-
tributions originating from the raided firm, as well as re-
VerDate 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
•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 
Resolved, That (a) the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct, or an investigative subcommittee of the 
committee established jointly by the chair and ranking mi-
nority 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 cam-
paign contributions related to such requests. 
(b) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
shall submit a report of its findings to the House of Rep-
resentatives within 2 months after the date of adoption 
of this resolution. 
Æ 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
23:27 Mar 10, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\HR228.LTH
HR228
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS