[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 4]
[House]
[Page 5394]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      OUR STANDARD SHOULD BE WHAT UPHOLDS THE DIGNITY OF THE HOUSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. 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.

                          ____________________