PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.On motion to table the measure Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 226 - 180, 15 Present (Roll no. 141).
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 19, 2009
Requires the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, or a designated investigative subcommittee, to begin immediately an investigation and report to the House on the relationship between: (1) the source and timing of past campaign contributions to Members of the House related to Paul Magliocchetti, founder of the raided prominent defense-lobbying firm; and (2) earmark requests made by Members on behalf of the firm's clients.
People & committees
Rep. Flake, Jeff [R-AZ-6] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
On motion to table the measure Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 226 - 180, 15 Present (Roll no. 141).
House roll call 141 · Individual votesMr. Becerra moved to table the measure.
QUESTION OF PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE - Mr. Flake rose to a question of the privileges of the House and offered a resolution. The Chair directed the Clerk to report the resolution. The Clerk completed the reading of H.Res. 265 and the Chair announced that the resolution met the required threshold under the rule.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H3653-3654; text of measure as introduced: CR H3653-3654)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H3445)
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.Res.265 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.Res.265 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.Res.265 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.Res.265 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.