Floor Statements

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 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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, in just a few minutes, I will introduce a privileged resolution, the purpose of which is to have the House Ethics Committee look into the relationship between the PMA Group--a lobbying firm that has been raided by the FBI--earmarks received by the raided firm for their clients and the source and timing of campaign contributions made by the raided firm to Members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, this will be the sixth resolution that I have introduced on the same topic. I want to stress again that this is not a partisan resolution. These resolutions have not been introduced at the behest of any Republican or of any Democrat. No Member of Congress is mentioned in these resolutions. No party is mentioned either. This is a problem that this House simply must address.

The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that, as long as Members of Congress have the ability, which we currently have, to award no-bid contracts to individuals or organizations--nonprofit or for profit--then you are going to have problems, and that is what we are seeing with the investigations that are going on with the PMA Group.

The PMA Group is a powerhouse lobbying firm that last year had revenues in excess of $17 million. That firm, as I have mentioned, has been raided by the FBI, and is now in the process of disbanding. By the end of this month, in just a few days, it will be gone, from $17 million--boom--overnight to nothing because somebody got on to them and because they were able to get earmarks for their clients who should not have been awarded in this way.

We simply should not have the ability here in Congress to award no- bid contracts to anyone, let alone those who turn around and make big contributions back to our congressional campaigns. That is what we are asking the Ethics Committee to look into.

Right now, the Ethics Committee has issued guidance, saying that, when you want to request an earmark, you have to sign a certification saying that you have no financial interest in the earmark that you are signing--that you don't have a spouse working for the firm or that money is not somehow going to come back to you. The Ethics Committee has also said that that does not include campaign contributions.

Yet we have examples of just thousands of dollars, hundreds of thousands of dollars coming back to those who have requested these earmarks from the firms who got the earmarks, the lobbying firms who requested the earmarks for the client and from political action committees established by the lobbying firm. That doesn't reflect well on the House.

As I said, this is not a Republican problem or a Democratic problem. This is a problem that all of us have here, and it needs to be addressed by the bipartisan Ethics Committee. That's the purpose of the resolution that I will offer in just a minute

As I mentioned, this is the sixth one. The five prior to this have been tabled. I don't know what the fate of this one will be. Perhaps it will be tabled as well. But if it is, we need to come back

and do the same thing because we can't stop until we address this issue.

We are going into a season of appropriations where the Appropriations Committee, in fact, the earmark deadline, request deadline, is next week. Are we going to continue to allow Members of this body to secure no-bid contracts for people who turn around and give them campaign contributions? That is a question that should be answered before we go into the appropriation season, and that is a reason we need to move forward quickly on this.

We looked at the 2008 defense bill. The PMA group, the firm that again has been raided by the FBI, received more than $300 million in earmarks for its clients. The 2009 defense bill was a number slightly higher than that or still totaling that number but looks to be above $300 million. It is worthy to note that that bill, the 2009 defense bill which we passed last September, was not even considered by the full Appropriations Committee in the House. So it wasn't vetted, there was virtually no oversight there, and when the bill came to the House, there was no ability for any Member of this body to challenge any of the thousands of earmarks that were in that bill, a few thousand of which represented no-bid contracts.

Mr. 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

specializing in obtaining defense earmarks for its clients,

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, 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 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, CQ Today specifically noted a Member getting

``$25,000 in campaign contribution money from [the founder of

the firm] and his relatives right after his subcommittee

approved its spending bill in 2005.''

Whereas, the Associated Press noted that Members received

campaign contributions from employees of the firm ``around

the time they requested'' earmarks for companies represented

by the firm.

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 three

hundred million dollars 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.

Mr. 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

specializing in obtaining defense earmarks for its clients,

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, 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, CQ Today specifically noted a Member getting

``$25,000 in campaign contribution money from [the founder of

the firm] and his relatives right after his subcommittee

approved its spending bill in 2005.''

Whereas, the Associated Press also noted that Members

received campaign contributions from employees of the firm

``around the time they requested'' earmarks for companies

represented by the firm.

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 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 this

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

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

this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, it seems altogether appropriate that the President is appearing on the Jay Leno show tonight. The administration's response to the AIG debacle has been nothing short of a comedy routine all week long. And we in Congress have played Laurel to the administration's Hardy all week long.

What we are about to do with this legislation, however, is not a laughing matter. We are responding to our failure to adequately review the stimulus bill by passing a bill that we have spent even less time reviewing.

A cursory review of this legislation seems to reveal that it's nothing more than a bill of attainder--a measure that is clearly unconstitutional. Does that matter to anyone here?

Let me offer just one example of why we should subject this legislation to a bit more deliberation. We don't have sufficient money in the Treasury, nor can we responsibly borrow enough money to purchase the toxic assets currently on the balance sheets of our financial institutions. We are going to need a great deal of investment from the private sector to do that.

Who in the private sector, Mr. Speaker, seeing what we are doing here today, would put their own money at risk for the possibility of financial return if they know that Congress, with one day's notice, can pass legislation to tax 90 percent of it?

It's tough enough, Mr. Speaker, for government to control the commanding heights of the economy without riding a high horse while doing it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day in Congress when the main justification for passing legislation we don't understand is that we are correcting legislation we didn't read.

We keep hearing that we have got to do this because our constituents are demanding it; that they want to see these executives tarred and feathered.

George Washington once said, ``If to please the people we do what we ourselves disprove, how do we later defend our work?'' That is the position we are in today.

This is a representative democracy. Our constituents may not understand that this is a bill of attainder, but we know that. We are the representatives of the people--and we know that. And it's our duty to uphold the Constitution.

I don't like the fact that these executives got these bonuses--and we should find a way constitutionally to deal with this issue. But rushing to pass a bill we don't understand to correct a bill we didn't read, is not the solution here today.

Let's reject this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, later today or tomorrow, the House will be voting again on a privileged resolution to look into the matter of the PMA scandal. There is an outside investigation by the Department of Justice into PMA, a powerhouse lobbying firm that will close its doors at the end of the month because of suspect contributions to Members of Congress, Members of Congress who secured no-bid contracts on behalf of that firm.

Mr. Speaker, several years ago we had the Jack Abramoff scandal. The leadership at that time was slow to recognize that scandal, and it kept spreading until it got worse and did damage to the reputation of this body. Let's not make that same mistake today. This scandal promises to be far larger if we let it go. So let's have the investigation go on by the Ethics Committee. We have an obligation to uphold the dignity and decorum of this body and we are not exercising it yet.

I urge a vote not to table the resolution, and let the Ethics Committee investigate this scandal.

Madam Speaker, a little later today, I will bring another privileged resolution to the floor asking for the Ethics Committee to look into the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions. This will be the fourth one that has been offered. Each time these have been tabled and we haven't instructed the Ethics Committee to look into this. I hope that that changes.

Several years ago, we had a scandal involving earmarks, the Jack Abramoff scandal. Mr. Abramoff now sits in Federal prison. Some staff members and lobbyists and others also were implicated in that scandal. The leadership at that time was slow to recognize the scandal that was there, and I would say today that the leadership is also slow to recognize what is going on here. There are investigations going on around us. The Department of Justice is investigating--we know this from various press reports--the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions.

Let me just read a few of the whereas clauses from the resolution that will be introduced later today. This one is a little more specific. The first resolution that was introduced had to do just with earmarks and campaign contributions in general. The second one had to do with earmarks related to the PMA Group. The next one just with earmarks related to the PMA Group for FY09 defense spending. This one has to do specifically with the head of PMA, Mr. Magliocchetti, whom we were told had his home raided by the FBI a while ago. Keep in mind that the PMA Group was a lobbying firm, a powerhouse lobbying firm, that over a period of 8 years collected more than $100 million in fees from its clients, mostly for seeking earmarks from this Congress. Yet when the news came that the FBI was investigating and had raided the office, that firm, that I believe brought in about $17 million last year alone in revenue, imploded, within a week. By the end of this month it will be completely gone, dissolved. And when you read some of allegations that are going around in the press, you don't wonder why.

CQ Today reported recently that Mr. Magliocchetti and nine of his relatives--two children, daughter-in-law, current wife, his ex-wife, ex-wife's parents, sister and brother-in-law--provided $1.5 million in political contributions from 2000 to 2008. Now if you look at some of the occupations listed by some of those who were giving $100,000 over just a couple of years--school teacher, police sergeant, homemaker-- does that not raise somebody's antenna that something might be amiss here?

We can't simply let the Justice Department's investigation dictate what we do here in the House. We should move forward ourselves. We shouldn't say that whether or not you can be indicted or convicted should be the standard that we uphold here in the House to uphold the dignity and decorum of this body. Madam Speaker, this body, this Congress, deserves better than that. That's why I hope that we will actually ask this time the Ethics Committee to investigate this matter.

Mr. 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, Mr. Paul Magliocchetti, a former Appropriations

Committee staffer, founded a prominent lobbying firm

specializing in obtaining defense earmarks for its clients

and whose offices--along with the home of the founder--were

recently raided by the FBI.

Whereas, the lobbying firm has shuttered its political

action committee and is scheduled to cease operations at the

end of the month but, according to the New York Times, ``not

before leaving a detailed blueprint of how the political

money churn works in Congress'' and amid multiple press

reports that its founder is the focus of a Justice Department

investigation. (The New York Times, February 20, 2009)

Whereas, CQ Today noted that the firm has ``charged $107

million in lobbying fees from 2000 through 2008'' and

estimates of political giving by the raided firm have varied

in the press, with The Hill reporting that the firm has given

$3.4 million to no less than 284 members of Congress. (CQ

Today, March 12, 2009; The Hill, March 4, 2009)

Whereas, The Hill reported that Mr. Magliocchetti is

``under investigation for [the firm's] campaign donations,''

the Washington Post highlighted the fact that federal

investigators are ``focused on allegations'' that he ``may

have reimbursed some of his staff to cover contributions made

in their names . . .,'' and the New York Times noted that

federal prosecutors are ``looking into the possibility'' that

he ``may have funneled bogus campaign contributions'' to

members of Congress. (The Hill, February 20, 2009; The

Washington Post, February 14, 2009; The New York Times,

February 11, 2009)

Whereas, Roll Call reported on ``the suspicious pattern of

giving established by two Floridians who joined [the firm's]

board of directors in 2006'' and who, with ``no previous

political profile . . . made more than $160,000 in campaign

contributions over a three-year period'' and ``generally

contributed the same amount to the same candidate on the same

days.'' (Roll Call, February 20, 2009)

Whereas, The Hill also reported that ``the embattled

defense lobbyist who led the FBI-raided [firm] has entered

into a Florida-based business with two associates whose

political donations have come into question'' and is listed

in corporate records as being an executive with them in a

restaurant business. (The Hill, February 17, 2009)

Whereas, Roll Call also reported that it had located tens

of thousands of dollars of donations linked to the firm that

``are improperly reported in the FEC database.'' (Roll Call,

February 20, 2009)

Whereas, CQ Today recently reported that Mr. Magliocchetti

and ``nine of his relatives--two children, his daughter-in-

law, his current wife, his ex-wife and his ex-wife's parents,

sister, and brother-in-law'' provided ``$1.5 million in

political contributions from 2000 through 2008 as the

lobbyist's now-embattled firm helped clients win billions of

dollars in federal contracts,'' with the majority of the

family members contributing in excess of $100,000 in that

timeframe. (CQ Today, March 12, 2009)

Whereas, CQ Today also noted that ``all but one of the

family members were recorded as working for [the firm] in

campaign finance reports, and most also were listed as having

other employers'' and with other occupations such as

assistant ticket director for a Class A baseball team, a

school teacher, a police sergeant, and a homemaker. (CQ

Today, March 12, 2009)

Whereas, in addition to reports of allegations related to

reimbursing employees and the concerning patterns of

contributions of business associates and board members, ABC

News reported that some former clients of the firm ``have

complained of being pressured by [the firm's] lobbyists to

write checks for politicians they either had no interest in

or openly opposed.'' (ABC News The Blotter, March 4, 2009)

Whereas, Roll Call has taken note of the timing of

contributions from employees of Mr. Magliocchetti's 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.'' (Roll Call, March 3, 2009)

Whereas, reports of the firm's success in obtaining

earmarks for their clients are widespread, with CQ Today

reporting 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. (CQ Today, February 19, 2009)

Whereas, clients of Mr. Magliocchetti's firm received at

least three hundred million dollars worth of earmarks in

fiscal year 2009 appropriations legislation, including

several that were approved even after news of the FBI raid

and Justice Department investigation into the firm and its

founder was well known.

Whereas, the Chicago Tribune noted that the ties between a

senior House Appropriations Committee member and Mr.

Magliocchetti's firm ``reflect a culture of pay-to-play in

Washington.'' and ABC News indicated that ``the firm's

operations--millions out to lawmakers, hundreds of millions

back in earmarks for clients--have made it, for many

observers, the poster child for tacit ``pay-to-play''

politics . . .'' (Chicago Tribune, March 2, 2009; ABC News

The Blotter, March 4, 2009)

Whereas Roll Call has reported that ``a handful of

lawmakers had already begun to refund donations tied to'' the

firm ``at the center of a federal probe . . .'' (Roll Call,

February 23, 2009)

Whereas, the persistent media attention focused on

questions about the nature and timing of campaign

contributions related to Mr. Magliocchetti, 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.

Whereas, the fact that cases are being investigated by the

Justice Department does not preclude the Committee on

Standards from taking investigative steps: 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 founder

of 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,

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, designated as No. 5 in the resolutions providing for consideration under H.R. 1262.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is noncontroversial in nature. It would simply ensure that the Federal capitalization grants for State water pollution control revolving funds remain formula-based. These Federal grants to the States haven't historically been earmarked, and this will simply ensure that that remains the case for the next 5 years.

I would submit that just because an account or a program hasn't previously been earmarked doesn't mean it won't be in the future.

We all remember that when the Department of Homeland Security was created in 2002, we were told this will not be earmarked. This is going to go out formula-based. It will be grants, merit based, just to protect the Nation. And that held true for about 5 years. However, in the past couple of years, it's been earmarked heavily, particularly the funding for FEMA's pre-disaster mitigation program. This was a program intended to save lives and reduce property damage by providing funds ``for hazard mitigation planning, acquisition, and relocation of structures out of the floodplain.''

But rather than continuing the practice which had been to allow these grants to be given out on a merit-based basis, Congress decided to earmark this, and in 2007, nearly half of these funds were earmarked. In fiscal year 2008, about 128 earmarks worth $400 million were included in the Homeland Security funding.

So this is not an idle concern, I think, that some of us have. Here's a program that I think by all accounts is working and working quite well, and we simply can't afford to have money in this program being drained off through earmarks.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman. I appreciate the discussion. I appreciate the fact that it has not been earmarked. As I mentioned, I noted that, and I just hope that this is the case in the future.

The problem is with other accounts--in the Homeland Security, for example--we were told these will not be earmarked, and they, in fact, have been. And so I hope the chairman is successful in beating off attempts to earmark.

And I hope, further, that he is successful in other legislation as well, such as the highway bill that we will be doing before long. Because I think that States like Arizona, particularly a lot of the donor States, would be a lot better off.

Many of us would be better off if people in a local capacity are made to make that decision rather than somebody here. I think we find the case that those who are in a position of authority here sometimes take the lion's share of the funding, and it sometimes isn't fair to many of us, and we know that----

I will yield.

Thank you.

I yield back.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in about 1\1/2\ hours, President Obama is expected to announce major earmark reforms as he signs an omnibus spending bill with 9,000 earmarks. This gives voice to St. Augustine's lament, give me sobriety--but not yet.

But Mr. Speaker, it is still a good thing. And it is still long overdue. And we still shouldn't have to look to the President to save us from ourselves. This earmark problem is our problem. But gratefully, I believe he will announce, and I hope that he will announce, that he will not sign legislation that will allow no-bid contracts, congressionally directed no-bid contracts, to go into effect. We have seen what that has done to the Congress, the kind of circular fundraising that happens and the campaign contributions that result. And it does not uphold the dignity and decorum of this body.

So I hope we can make major earmark reforms with the President.

Mr. Speaker, today, President Obama made two major announcements. First, he wants serious earmark reform. In particular, he wants to get rid of earmarks that represent no-bid contracts to private companies.

Second, he will sign the $410 billion omnibus spending bill containing nearly 9,000 earmarks, several thousand of which represent no-bid contracts to private companies. It should not go unnoticed that the announcement to rein in earmarks was made to great fanfare when the ceremony to sign the earmark-laden omnibus into law was taking place in a quiet room away from public view.

So, Mr. Speaker, as much as we know we need adult supervision around here on the earmark question, I think it's safe to say that we are on our own. We can't expect the President to help us out that much. This is not a criticism of this President. The last President talked a lot about earmark reform but didn't carry a very big stick. In the end, he left it to us, and we didn't reform the process. We are in that same position today.

Mr. Speaker, the bill that's being signed into law today contains thousands and thousands of no-bid contracts to private companies. Many of those no-bid contracts to private companies will go to clients of the PMA Group, a lobbying firm that is currently under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice. Yet we continued. We let it go in this bill.

So I think those of us who worry that we are not going to be serious about earmark reform this coming session have reason to be worried, despite the announcements to get serious about the prospect both by the President and by the Democratic majority here.

Let me just tell you a little about the scope of the problem we face. I have here 83 pages. These represent certification letters that Members of Congress write in order to request an earmark. These requests were made for the 2009 defense bill which we passed in September of last year without any debate where somebody could challenge any one of the earmarks which were more than 2,000 in that piece of legislation.

These 83 I hold in my hand now were requests for earmarks made to clients of the PMA Group, again the firm that is under investigation by the Department of Justice. In every one of these cases, a private company is listed here to receive the earmark.

I will just read through a couple. This is one where the recipient of this earmark is to go to Ocean Power Technologies located at Pier 21 in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Here is another. This one is to go to L-3 Communications Systems project located in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Here is another for Parametric Technology Corporation located at 140 Kendrick Street, Needham, Massachusetts.

There is another for General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, Scranton Operations in Scranton, Pennsylvania.

These are all no-bid contracts to private companies. They are all to clients of the PMA Group.

In every case here, in all 83, those who requested these earmarks for these private companies, these no-bid contracts, then received, or before, in every case here, received a contribution either from executives at the PMA Group or the PAC operated from the PMA Group.

So we have a problem here, Mr. Speaker, that we need to address. Now, there were some reforms that have been outlined today saying that no- bid contracts will have to be competitively bid. If these no-bid contracts, if these companies are actually listed and the Federal agencies receive these requests and then bid it out, then it's not an earmark anymore.

So we have a bit of a misnomer here or something that doesn't quite make sense. But I think a lot of us who have been around here a while are justifiably skeptical that this will actually take place. Most of us were here in January of 2007 when the new majority outlined some earmark reforms in terms of transparency and accountability.

But we all in the past 2 years have realized that new rules are only as good as your willingness to enforce them, and these rules have gone unenforced.

Mr. Speaker, let's have some real earmark reform.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I certainly support this resolution. The Special Olympics is a wonderful program. Certainly using Capitol Grounds is appropriate. Americans all over the country and certainly here revere this Capitol, as well we all should.

In a couple of minutes, we will be voting on a privileged resolution that I have offered. This is the third one. It is similar to the others that have been offered but it differs a little. It is a bit narrowed.

Right now, Mr. Speaker, as much as we revere this institution, there is a cloud hanging over it. And that cloud is that there are investigations going on right now at the Department of Justice investigating the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions. And as long as that is occurring without this body doing anything, there will be a cloud hanging over this institution.

Now some may say as long as other bodies outside of Congress are investigating this issue, that Congress has no obligation to do so. I think that is wrong. We have an obligation to uphold the dignity and decorum of this body. And we haven't been doing it very well. And as long as these investigations are swirling around us and we fail to act, then this cloud remains.

Some have mentioned that, in fact in one of the papers today, it referenced that this investigation is a Republican-led effort to embarrass the Democrats because the Democrats embarrassed Republicans beforehand. It is nothing of the sort. I did not consult with my party leadership before offering this resolution. I have not consulted with them during it. This is not a partisan resolution.

This is a bipartisan problem. The problem is that the perception is that earmarks are influencing campaign contributions and that campaign contributions are influencing earmarks. And there is really no other way to look at the situation but to draw that conclusion. That is why we need to vote on this resolution and allow the Ethics Committee to look into it.

Again this is not a partisan issue. This is a problem that afflicts both sides. I hope my colleagues see it that way. And we simply cannot allow this body to have the cloud hanging over it as it is right now.

And so I would encourage my colleagues, when it comes time to vote for this resolution, I'm sorry, vote against the tabling of the resolution, which would allow the Ethics Committee to look into it.

And I thank the gentleman for yielding.