[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4407-4408]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          PAY-TO-PLAY POLITICS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, over the past several weeks, the political 
world has been rocked by a scandal that led to the impeachment of the 
Governor of Illinois. At issue was the specter of pay-to-play, more 
specifically the possibility that political favors were either promised 
or exchanged, exchanged for campaign contributions.

[[Page 4408]]

  The vote to remove Governor Blagojevich by the Illinois Senate was 
unanimous. Condemnation from Capitol Hill was equally swift and 
unequivocal. Pay-to-play politics should have no place.
  Fast forward just a few weeks.
  We now know that the Department of Justice is conducting an 
investigation into the propriety of campaign contributions made by 
individuals associated with the powerhouse lobbying firm the PMA Group, 
individuals who have contributed nearly 3.3 million to the campaigns 
and political action committees of many Members in this body. Within 
days of the announcement of the FBI investigation, the PMA Group, which 
had revenues of more than 15 million just last year, imploded.

                              {time}  2000

  So what would cause those associated with the PMA Group to contribute 
millions of dollars to Members of Congress? Here's what the public 
sees; press reports that nearly nine in 10 Members who made earmark 
requests in the fiscal year 2008 Defense Appropriation bill for clients 
of the PMA Group also received campaign contributions from those 
associated with the PMA Group. Those earmark requests resulted in 
nearly $300 million in earmark money for PMA clients.
  Mr. Speaker, much has been made of the rule changes in the 110th 
Congress that add transparency to the process of earmarking. As one who 
had sought these changes for years, I was the first to applaud when 
these new rules were adopted. Sunlight always illuminates, but it 
doesn't always disinfect. We now see what scurries around our feet, but 
we seem unwilling to grab a broom and clean house.
  Let me illustrate. Less than 6 months ago, we approved the Defense 
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2009 as part of a so-called 
``minibus.'' Some 48 hours before the bill was to be considered on the 
House floor, we learned that it contained more than 2,000 House 
earmarks, none of which had been considered by the full House 
Appropriations Committee. The minibus was considered as an amendment to 
the Senate bill, and therefore not a single earmark challenge was 
allowed. We now know, of course, that multiple earmarks in the minibus 
were secured for clients of the PMA Group. In addition, several 
earmarks in the minibus went to Kuchera Industries, a PMA client that 
is also being investigated by the Department of Justice.
  So here we are today, Mr. Speaker, about to consider an omnibus 
appropriations bill that contains more than 8,000 earmarks. It should 
be noted that we received the earmark list just hours ago. Of course, 
it's impossible to dig through 8,000 earmarks before the bill comes to 
the floor on Wednesday. But this much we know: In the list of earmarks 
we received are several earmarks worth millions of dollars for clients 
of the PMA Group.
  What else is in this bill? What other embarrassing details are just 
waiting for concerned citizens, enterprising reporters or curious 
Justice Department officials to discover?
  A short while ago, I noticed a privileged resolution on this 
situation. This is not a partisan resolution because this is not a 
partisan issue. I would implore my colleagues not to treat it as such. 
The ``whereas'' clauses mention no party or Member. The ``resolve'' 
clauses simply ask the Ethics Committee to investigate the relationship 
between earmarks and campaign contributions so that we can determine if 
the rules that we have in the House are adequate to maintain the 
dignity of the House.
  We see enduring examples of Members on both sides of the aisle taking 
their responsibility as stewards of taxpayer money very seriously. But 
when we are seen to be earmarking funds to campaign donors, we give 
unnecessary fodder to those who would question our motives.
  Some may argue that the absence of a visible quid pro quo with regard 
to earmarks and campaign contributions absolves us from our 
responsibility to take action on this resolution. After all, 
investigations are moving ahead; shouldn't they just take their course? 
This is certainly an option, but consider the cost to the reputation of 
this body. Should Department of Justice investigations, indictments and 
convictions be the standard for taking action to uphold the dignity of 
the House?
  Mr. Speaker, we owe far more to this institution than we are giving 
it. Let's pass this resolution and give this institution the respect 
and dignity it deserves.

                          ____________________