[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6194-6195]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




INVESTIGATE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EARMARK AND CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. 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

[[Page 6195]]

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.

                          ____________________