Floor Statements

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.

Madam Speaker, when most people think about earmarks, they think of the silly earmarks that we hear about like the one in the omnibus spending bill that will pass the Senate today, $1.7 million to combat swine odor in Iowa. And there are a lot of earmarks like that. Or one for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, or one for a hippie memorial. That is typically what is on people's minds when they think of earmarks. But today there is a different type of earmark, and it is not your grandfather's earmark. It is something that has really come about in the last several years or really been perfected in the last several years. These earmarks are no-bid contracts to private companies.

Now, when the Federal Government spends money, there are stipulations in how they spend that money. It is very difficult for a Federal agency to award a no-bid contract. If they do, they have to jump through a lot of hoops. There has to be a national security exemption. There have to be other exemptions. It is difficult to do, and gratefully so.

President Obama announced the other day that he is going to try to make sure that there are no more no-bid contracts from Federal agencies. And that is a great move. But what hasn't been talked about are the no-bid earmarks, no-bid contracts that are in the form of earmarks that come from Congress that is congressionally directed no- bid contracts. And what it leads to is what I like to call circular fundraising, and this is what has been the subject of a few of the privileged resolutions that have been offered here in the House in the last couple of days.

What happens is you have money here that Congress has from the U.S. taxpayer. Earmark spending which will be some $8 billion to $10 billion this year, goes this way. It goes to the earmark recipient. Say it is a defense contractor. And in this case if a defense contractor is getting a no-bid contract to make some widget for the Navy or for the Army or something else, or to make a shirt or a pair of gloves for our Armed Forces, they will get that contract, a no-bid contract, and then what you will see is money will come right back to the Member of Congress who secured that earmark in the form of a campaign contribution. That is represented by the line that goes around there. And in some cases, in most cases now, those who secure the earmark for a no-bid contract receive campaign contributions from those who they got no-bid contract for.

Oftentimes the earmark recipient will hire a lobbying firm, and that lobbying firm will also make contributions to the Member. And then sometimes the lobbying firm will also have a PAC, and that PAC will make contributions to the Member. So, in some cases, a Member of Congress will get what could be called the trifecta: They will get regular contributions from the earmark recipient, money from the lobbying firm, and also money from the lobbying firm's PAC.

For one defense contract, say, for a few million dollars, a no-bid contract, sometimes the Member of Congress can receive as much as $50,000 to $100,000 for one earmark, for what appears to be for one earmark. By the time the earmark recipient and the lobbying firm and the lobbying firm's PAC contribute to the Member, that is a lot of money that makes it back into the Member of Congress' hands. So what happens? It is easier then to earmark more spending the next year and to do more no-bid contracts.

This is the essence of the privileged resolution that was offered. There is a lobbying firm called PMA that has been raided by the FBI in recent weeks, or we learned of it in recent weeks. That lobbying firm contributed millions and millions of dollars to Members of Congress who had secured earmarks for the client of this lobbying firm. The lobbying firm's PAC had contributed millions and millions of dollars as well to those Members of Congress who secured earmark spending.

Madam Speaker, it simply isn't right for Members of Congress to get a no-bid contract for anyone, let alone those who turn around and contribute money back to that Member. It simply doesn't look right. There may not be a quid pro quo here, but it should not be allowed by the House to happen. The House should set a higher standard. We are charged with upholding the dignity and decorum of the House. And when you have circular fundraising like this happening and investigations swirling around, we simply can't allow this to continue, Madam Speaker.

I hope that the next time a privileged resolution is up that we will all vote to carry it to the Ethics Committee.

Madam Speaker, speaking as a partisan Republican, perhaps I should want the President to sign the omnibus bill if it is passed. There may be money for tattoo removal in the omnibus bill, but it won't be easy to remove the tattoo that comes with signing a bill like this, with nearly 9,000 earmarks contained in it.

Now, most of the attention has been put on the silly earmarks like swine odor abatement in Iowa or the tattoo removal in California. But more damaging are the thousands, literally,

thousands, Madam Speaker, of no-bid contracts that are contained in this legislation, thousands of congressionally-directed earmarks to private companies, which are no-bid contracts. And that will be a gift for Republicans that will probably keep on giving, because, as they are discovered in this legislation going forward, there are bound to be problems.

Already we know that the Department of Justice is investigating a lobbying firm that secured a number of earmarks in this legislation for its clients, and then turned around and made campaign contributions to the Members that secured those earmarks. There's an investigation going on right now. And those earmarks are still in the bill.

So, as I mentioned, as a partisan Republican, we probably should say, President, sign this bill. It will be good for us politically because it will be tougher for you to enact your agenda afterwards. But it's not good for the country.

It's not enough for the President to say this is last year's business. He should know that most of the bills contained in this omnibus spending measure didn't even go through the full committee process. Nearly 9,000 earmarks, most of them were air-dropped right at the end. We didn't see them last year. We saw most of them only 48 hours this year before the bill was signed. We had no ability to challenge any of them. So saying that is last year's business is simply not accurate.

Even if it were last year's business, let's take that analogy a little further. Iraq policy. If the President were to say----

If the President were to say, you know, this Iraq policy that was last year's business, I've inherited it. I'm just going to continue it, continue with the status quo. But he's not, nor should he. He is the President. His signature will go on the bottom of this bill, and he shouldn't sign it.

We should enact a long-term, 1-year CR and fund the government at last year's levels. Let's act on the fiscal responsibility that we all say that we are for.

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 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.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama announced an initiative yesterday to fix the Federal procurement process. He wants to make sure that there are no more no-bid contracts.

Now, this is a welcome move. But if the President really wants to get serious about ending no-bid contracts, he should veto the omnibus spending bill we are just about to send him. It contains thousands of no-bid contracts for private companies. If the President can't see fit to veto the omnibus, he should at a minimum commit to veto future legislation that contains no-bid contracts.

Again, a congressional earmark for a private company is nothing more than a no-bid contract. What is worse, many of these congressionally directed no-bid contracts go to companies whose executives and their lobbyists turn around and make campaign contributions to those who secured the earmark or no-bid contract.

This morning we will be voting on a privileged resolution to investigate earmarks and campaign contributions

related to the PMA Group, an organization being investigated right now by the Department of Justice. I urge my colleagues to support this nonpartisan resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, later this week President Obama is expected to sign the omnibus spending bill into law. That bill contains nearly 9,000 earmarks. Now, this is unfortunate. It sends a signal that we have ushered in a new era of absolutely the same, business as usual.

I would encourage the President, if he is going to sign the omnibus bill, to at least announce a change moving forward. He could announce, for example, that he will not sign legislation in the future that contains congressionally directed no-bid contracts to private companies.

He should encourage the Congress to end the appearance of pay-to-play when no-bid contracts are given to those who give us campaign contributions. Giving no-bid contracts to our campaign donors should be beneath the dignity of this House. Now our leadership, both on the Republican and the Democratic side, has not recognized this yet, but I hope that the President does.

Madam Speaker, later this week we'll vote on whether to instruct the Ethics Committee to investigate the relationship between earmarks and contributions from the PMA Group, an organization that is currently under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Last week, I offered a broader resolution. This one is specific. At its core is the notion that the House should have a higher standard of conduct than whether or not a Member can be indicted or convicted. The broader resolution gained the support of 182 Members--a substantial number, but still short of passage.

Let me make an appeal to the newer Members of this body, those who have been elected in the past few election cycles: Most of you campaigned on principles of good government, that Congress should take its article 1 powers seriously, that we should be careful and deliberative stewards of the public purse.

I have some sobering news. It's now up to you to uphold the dignity and decorum of this institution. It's now up to you to ensure that those who view our proceedings from afar will have enduring respect for what is done here.

This duty would normally fall to the more seasoned Members of this body, particularly those who have been entrusted with leadership positions. One would assume that they would feel it their obligation to be the guardians of the reputation and the dignity of the people's House. But this is not the case.

For whatever reason, those who have been chosen to lead have chosen not to lead on this issue. While the Department of Justice investigations swirl around us, while some of our former Members sit in prison, we have opted for business as usual, insisting that campaign contributions do not constitute ``financial interest,'' whistling past the Justice Department as we go.

Those who have been entrusted in leadership positions may tell you that securing no-bid contracts, even for those who give you campaign contributions, is simply an exercise of your article 1 authority under the Constitution. But you know better than that.

When the President stood in this body 1 week ago and called for an end to no-bid contracts, he received a standing ovation. We all stood and cheered. But the very next day we passed legislation that provided thousands of no-bid contracts, including several to clients of the PMA Group--a lobbying group currently under investigation by the Department of Justice.

So here we are. A privileged resolution has been offered that would ask the House Ethics Committee to investigate earmarks and campaign contributions related to the PMA Group. We will vote on that resolution on Thursday.

This resolution, or something similar to it, will eventually pass. We will eventually come to understand that it is beneath the dignity of this institution to continue to sweep this issue under the rug and pretend that no one will notice.

It simply isn't right to give no-bid contracts to those who give us campaign contributions. I believe that the overwhelming majority of this body understands that, regardless of what our leaders may tell us. I think an overwhelming majority of this body knows that we need a higher standard than we currently employ.

Madam Speaker, we owe this institution far more than we are giving it. Let us vote for this privileged resolution and give it the respect it deserves.

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 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 Roll Call reported on February 11, 2009, that ``the

defense-appropriations-focused lobbying shop'' had in recent

years ``spread millions of dollars of campaign contributions

to lawmakers.'';

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 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 on behalf of clients of

the raided firm already made by Members 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.

Madam Speaker, last week I offered a privileged resolution which would have required the House Ethics Committee to investigate the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions.

This resolution was prompted by the revelation that the Department of Justice is investigating a powerhouse lobbying firm, the PMA Group, for irregularities, including apparent straw-man contributions to Members of Congress. Many Members of Congress receiving PMA contributions have gone on to secure earmarks for the firm's clients.

This is no small matter. The PMA Group had revenues of 18 million last year alone, made contributions to more than 100 Members of this body and secured some 300 million in earmarks for its clients in one bill alone, the 2008 Defense Appropriations bill. My resolution last week was tabled with a vote of 226-182 with 12 Members voting present.

Now during the course of last week I had numerous discussions with Members of this body who felt that the ``resolved'' clauses in the resolution were too broad, that the Ethics Committee did not have the time or resources to undertake such a task. Now, for the record, I disagree. I feel that with such a cloud as this over this House, we have an obligation to do whatever it takes to ensure that the dignity and the decorum of the House are maintained.

But with the failure of last week's privileged resolution, the cloud over the House remains, a cloud that will stay as long as we fail to take action. I have therefore narrowed the resolution.

I offered last week to address only the PMA Group. The new privileged resolution simply states that the House Ethics Committee will investigate the earmark company made on behalf of clients of the PMA Group. There are some who may believe that the announcement by the PMA Group that it will dissolve at the end of the month absolves us of our responsibility to take action. I would remind them that the omnibus spending bill that will likely go to the President later this week contains more than a dozen earmarks for clients of the PMA Group.

Let me put it in plain language. The legislation we will send to the President later this week contains no-bid contracts for clients of the PMA Group, an organization that is currently under investigation by the Department of Justice.

Further, there are Members of Congress who secured these no-bid contracts and received campaign contributions from the PMA Group, an organization that is currently under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice. If this doesn't warrant an investigation by the House Ethics Committee, Madam Speaker, what does?

Again, Madam Speaker, let's be clear. This is not a partisan resolution. No Member of this body is referenced in the resolution, nor is there reference to a political party. The cloud that hangs over this institution rains on Republicans and Democrats alike. It is our responsibility, all of us, to let the sun shine on this institution once more.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we passed an omnibus spending bill with more than 8,600 earmarks. Many of them are simply wasteful, including 1.8 million to combat swine odor in Iowa. Maybe that could have been spent a little closer to home.

But a lot of these earmarks, a few thousand of them, have the potential to be far more damaging to this institution because they are essentially no-bid contracts. In many cases, they're no-bid contracts to those who turn out to be campaign contributors to Members who secured the no-bid contract.

We have to ask ourselves, is this proper for the House to do? Should the House of Representatives allow its Members to award no-bid contracts to their campaign contributors? It doesn't seem right, Mr. Speaker. We owe this institution far better than that, and we ought to stop the practice.

Mr. Speaker, it was recently reported by Politico that ``FBI agents have spent months laying the groundwork for their current investigation, including conducting research on earmarks and campaign contributions.''

With this as a backdrop, today we will consider a privileged resolution asking the Ethics Committee to conduct an investigation. This is not a

partisan resolution. It mentions no individual Member of Congress. It mentions no political party.

Over the past few years, we have seen outside investigations lead to indictments and convictions related to earmarks, yet we have done little to change our practices.

Today we will consider an omnibus spending bill containing nearly 9,000 earmarks, many of which are no-bid contracts to private companies, companies whose executives have, in addition to their lobbyists, contributed millions of dollars to Members who secured those earmarks. This simply isn't right.

Mr. Speaker, we owe this institution far more than we are giving it. Let's vote for this privileged resolution and give it the respect and dignity it deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 184 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the conference report, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes the violation of section 426(a).

Mr. Speaker, this point of order is against the bill because it may contain unfunded mandates. We have in this body a question of consideration where we shouldn't move ahead with a bill if it might contain unfunded mandates.

Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make is we have no idea whether this contains unfunded mandates or not. I can't tell you definitively if it does, and here's why:

This is the bill. This is the bill that we received less than 48 hours ago. It contains, for example, roughly 9,000 earmarks. Now, somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe in my time here--it's getting heavy. I'll put it down. In my time here in 8 years I don't think I have ever seen a bill, and I know that it didn't happen prior to my time here, where one single bill has contained this many earmarks, 9,000. And let me point out this is a combination of nine bills, only three of which went even through the Committee on Appropriations. The rest of them didn't even go through the full committee, just the subcommittee. We didn't have the ability to go to the floor and challenge any of these. That just wasn't available to us.

So here we are today with this stack that we just got less than 48 hours ago and we are told that we have to pile through and try to see if these 9,000 earmarks, which is part of a spending bill that spends $410 billion, to see if they're valid, to see if there is a Federal nexus, to see if there might be anything untoward. We don't know. None of us can actually go through that, and so we shouldn't proceed with consideration of this bill.

One way to look at it is that there are 9,000 earmarks in the bill. The way that we should look at it as well, and I don't know how many, nobody can tell me how many, but it's a safe bet to assume there are a few thousand, at least, no-bid contracts. These are earmarks that go to private companies that nobody else has a chance to bid on.

Now, one of the best lines I felt that the President used last night, and it was one of the greatest applause lines that we had and justifiably so, the President said we have had no-bid defense contracts with regard to Iraq, and we shouldn't. And the whole place erupted in applause. I myself stood up. We shouldn't do that. Yet in this piece of legislation, we have at least a few thousand no-bid contracts. No-bid contracts that are going to private companies whose executives and the lobbyists who represent them have contributed millions of dollars to Members in this body, the same Members who have requested those earmarks.

Now, one need not suggest that there is anything untoward in any of them only to suggest that somebody on the outside certainly thinks there is. There is one group, the PMA group, who makes a habit of requesting a lot of earmarks in bills. In fact, in the 2008 defense bill, they got $300 million in earmarks for their clients from this body. That same lobbying firm has clients receiving a dozen or so earmarks in this bill. These are earmarks to private companies. These are no-bid contracts that we are doing that we all stand up and applaud when the President says we shouldn't have no-bid contracts going to private companies, and yet in this piece of legislation we are going to consider today, unless we stop consideration, we're going to be approving thousands of no-bid contracts to private companies.

Now, can anybody in this body stand to tell me that that is right and proper? Are we upholding the dignity of the House and the decorum of the House by doing so? We know that there is an investigation going on right now of one of those firms that sought earmarks and received earmarks in this bill. A lobbying firm received several for their clients. Yet they remain in this piece of legislation.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to the time remaining?

The gentleman makes a point that we should discuss the merits of the bill. This point of order is raised against continuing because we don't know if there are unfunded mandates in the bill.

Again, I will yield to the gentleman if he can assure me that there are no unfunded mandates in this bill, if he can say that he has read this piece of legislation or that he knows that there are none, because I think that it's incumbent upon us.

I will yield to the gentleman if he can make that assurance.

Thank you. As far as I know, there might be, there may not be.

But I can tell you, when you have a bill this large that we got just 48 hours ago, we simply don't know.

Typically, several years ago, we were having problems, we had Members of this body who were indicted and were convicted and are now in jail for earmark abuse. We said at that time that we should have reform, we should have transparency. We got some transparency, and that's great, and I applaud the other side of the aisle for doing what they did to bring this about.

Transparency, sunlight always illuminates, but doesn't always disinfect, contrary to popular belief. You have to follow up transparency with something else.

Some may say we have a transparent process now because we got copies of 9,000 earmarks 48 hours in advance of considering the legislation, but I don't have the ability, nor does any Member of this body, to actually challenge any of the 9,000 earmarks contained in this legislation.

Typically, appropriation bills come to the floor under an open rule, which allows Members of Congress to challenge specific earmarks. Are there one of these no-bid contracts, for example, that was lobbied for by the PMA group, a group that is now under Federal investigation that has since imploded just days after it was revealed they were under investigation?

Are some of these earmarks, perhaps, untoward? Many people would actually like to challenge that, have the author, have the one who secured the earmark come to the floor and defend that earmark: ``Here is why this company deserves a no-bid contract. Here is why I know, as a Member of Congress, that nobody else can provide the services that they can provide, and they deserve a no-bid contract. Here is why.'' We aren't allowed to do that, because this legislation is coming to the floor under a closed rule and no amendments like that are even offered. I can't challenge any earmarks in this legislation, nor can anybody in this body. It's one vote for the whole package.

We are better than that. The people who sent us here deserve better than that. This great institution deserves better than that. Let's not proceed with consideration of this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. Speaker, later today we will be considering a privileged resolution that is brought to the floor to ask the Ethics Committee to investigate the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions.

We know, as I mentioned, that the Department of Justice is currently conducting that kind of investigation. Politico reported just a few days ago that several sources have said that the Department of Justice has been building a case based on earmarks and campaign contributions or investigating earmarks and campaign contributions.

Yet our own Ethics Committee guidelines state that earmarks that are received from those who we get a no-bid contract for are proper and not a problem.

My fear is that our own Ethics Committee here in the House has a different standard, a more lax standard than, perhaps, the Department of Justice has. And Members of Congress, who are securing earmarks or no-bid contracts for private companies, might be exposed more than they think they are.

And even if they aren't, upholding the dignity and decorum of this body dictates that we do something more here, that we actually have a process that is above reproach. And when you have investigations swirling out there over lobby firms and others, we aren't upholding the decorum and dignity of this body.

This resolution that we will consider later today is not a partisan resolution. No Member is mentioned. No party is mentioned. And before you vote to table this resolution, to kill it, please consider, don't we deserve better here?

Shouldn't we have a standard that's higher than indictment and conviction? Don't the people who sent us here deserve a little better than that?

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a question of the privileges of the House previously noticed.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, yesterday I introduced a privileged resolution here in the House which asked the Ethics Committee to look into the relationship between campaign contributions and earmarks. This has been a problem, as we know, for a long time but it was brought to a head just recently when a lobby firm, a powerhouse lobby firm that had $14 million in revenue just last year, it was revealed that they were being investigated by the FBI.

This firm was quite prominent. It passed a lot of campaign contributions to Members here on Capitol Hill. In return, clients of this lobbying firm received in one defense appropriation bill $300 million. So it was quite lucrative for this firm obviously to do what it was doing.

Anyway, it was revealed that the FBI was investigating this firm, and within days, the firm completely imploded. It has dissolved. One week or so after it was revealed, it's gone, but the damage has been wrought to the dignity and decorum of this House. We sit here today all under suspicion because a firm spread so many campaign contributions around, and many earmarks were received. And no matter what the intent was or the motive here, the appearance of this does not reflect well on the dignity and decorum of the House.

We have to remember that most of the earmarks sought by this firm, this firm that is now under investigation, are for for-profit entities, private businesses. These earmarks are essentially no-bid contracts. A Member of Congress will simply say, I want an earmark for this firm. Maybe it might be in his district, it might not, but it's a private, for-profit-making company, getting a Federal contract without scrutiny otherwise, with nothing and no other bids. Nobody else can bid on it.

Here, let me just step back for a second. One thing that is unbelievable here is we will be considering an omnibus appropriation bill, a $410 billion bill, tomorrow. We received a list of the earmarks that will be in that bill yesterday. So I think within 36 hours or so of receiving the list of 9,000 earmarks, we will be considering the bill.

Now, we have had rules in this House, and good rules, passed which stipulate that we have transparency, that we are supposed to be given notice of these earmarks well in advance. I would submit that 36 hours for 9,000 is hardly transparency, but even if it were, transparency has to be followed by accountability. Accountability means that somebody should be able to stand up and challenge any of these earmarks, to challenge whether or not a for-profit entity, a company in somebody's district, ought to be getting a sole-source contract by a Member, with no scrutiny by other Members of this body. I cannot come to the floor tomorrow, nor can any other Member, and challenge any of these earmarks, to look at the relationship between earmarks, campaign contributions, or to simply say is this a good use of Federal spending.

Then we found that--add insult to injury, 9,000 earmarks with minimal notice--we found that the PMA Group, who lobbied for many earmarks in last year's defense bill the year before that, clients of the PMA Group received as many as up to a dozen earmarks in this omnibus appropriation bill that we'll be considering tomorrow. Let me say that again. A firm under investigation by Federal authorities, for what might be misused or mishandled campaign contributions to Members of Congress, clients of that firm are receiving earmarks in the appropriation bill that we'll be passing tomorrow, and not one Member here has the ability to go in and challenge a single one of those earmarks. It's take-it-or-leave-it on the whole bill, one vote at the end, take-it-or-leave-it, no ability to challenge. That simply isn't right, Madam Speaker. That's not right.

That's why we need the Ethics Committee to take a look at this. We know from press reports that somebody's taking a look at it. Politico reported on February 12 that, ``Several sources said FBI agents have spent months laying the groundwork for their current investigation, including conducting research on earmarks and campaign contributions.''

Now, we may not want to look at it, but the Justice Department is. We have the obligation here to uphold the dignity and decorum of the House. Our standard should not be investigations, convictions, and imprisonment. It ought to be what upholds the dignity of the House. Let's pass this resolution.