Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. 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. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. 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. FLAKE

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

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. 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. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. 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. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. 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. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. 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. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. 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.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. 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. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. 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. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I will yield.

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you. I yield back.

Mr. FLAKE. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. 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----

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

Mr. FLAKE. 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.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. 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. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. 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.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. 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.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. 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.