[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 69 (Wednesday, May 6, 2009)]
[House]
[Page H5279]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      ETHICS AND NO-BID CONTRACTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. Tomorrow, I plan to offer a privileged resolution 
regarding earmarks and campaign contributions. This will be the eighth 
such resolution that has been offered.
  The House leadership maintains that this privileged resolution is a 
blunt instrument and that the Ethics Committee is not designed to deal 
with issues of this magnitude. Let me be the first to concede the 
point. These resolutions are a blunt instrument, and the House Ethics 
Committee is not designed to deal with issues of this magnitude. But 
it's the only instrument we've got.
  Here's the problem. Many of the earmarks that have been recently 
approved by the House represent no-bid contracts to private companies. 
In many cases, executives at the private companies and the lobbyists 
who represent them have turned around, have made large campaign 
contributions to the Members who secured these no-bid contracts for 
them.
  It would seem to me that overly burdening the House Ethics Committee 
should be the least of our worries here.
  We're informed that with the PMA investigation, the Justice 
Department is looking into the relationship between earmarks and 
campaign contributions. The Justice Department just indicted former 
Governor Blagojevich, in part, based on allegations of official acts 
promised in exchange for campaign contributions. And we're worried 
about overburdening the House Ethics Committee?
  Let me repeat. The House just awarded hundreds of millions of dollars 
in the form of no-bid contracts to companies whose executives and their 
lobbyists turned around and contributed tens of thousands of dollars to 
Members of Congress who secured those no-bid contracts. It seems to me 
that concerns about overly burdening the Ethics Committee are 
misplaced.
  I want to applaud members of the Democratic freshman class who have 
now been subjected to intense pressure from their leadership. These 
freshmen came to this body with the bright and untarnished respect for 
the institution. The curtain has now been pulled back and my guess is 
they don't like what they see. I know just how they feel.
  I think that they know that the ability of Members of Congress to 
award no-bid contracts to private companies whose executives and 
lobbyists turn around and give them campaign contributions cannot be 
explained, let alone justified.
  I think that these freshmen and other supporters of this resolution 
fully understand that these privileged resolutions are an unwieldy 
instrument, but that the process these resolutions are attempting to 
expose is not being addressed in any other substantive fashion.
  As for myself, I have been asked why I don't just file an ethics 
complaint against an individual. This is not about any one individual. 
This is not about any one party. The practice of awarding no-bid 
contracts to private companies whose executives turn around and make 
contributions to those Members who secured the no-bid contract or 
earmark goes on in both political parties. Consequently, the ethical 
cloud that hangs over this body rains on Republicans and Democrats 
alike.
  This is not about retribution. I feel much the same about this issue 
as the President feels about enhanced interrogations or torture. Let's 
move on. But let's move on into a world in which we understand that 
awarding no-bid contracts to private companies whose executives and 
lobbyists turn around and make campaign contributions to the Member of 
Congress who secured the no-bid contract is neither right nor proper.
  Now, some may say that these concerns are addressed in the earmark 
reforms that have already been adopted. This is simply untrue. Among 
the tens of thousands of earmark requests that have been made for the 
coming fiscal year are thousands of no-bid contracts for private 
companies.
  I'm planning to give notice, as I mentioned, of another privileged 
resolution tomorrow, but I'm prepared to hold off asking for a vote on 
the resolution next week if the House leadership is willing to put a 
stop to the practice of awarding no-bid contracts for private 
companies.
  The ball is in the court of the House leadership. If they want to 
continue to defend the practice of giving no-bid contracts to private 
companies whose executives and their lobbyists turn around and make 
campaign contributions to those Members who secure the no-bid 
contracts, then I suppose we'll have to continue to use this blunt 
instrument.
  Mr. Speaker, we owe this institution far better than we're giving it. 
Let's treat this Congress with the same respect and reverence that it 
deserves.

                          ____________________