[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 5]
[House]
[Page 6394]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    VOTE ``NO'' ON NO-BID CONTRACTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California). Under a 
previous order of the House, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, later this week we'll vote on whether to 
instruct the Ethics Committee to investigate the relationship between 
earmarks and contributions from the PMA Group, an organization that is 
currently under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice.
  Last week, I offered a broader resolution. This one is specific. At 
its core is the notion that the House should have a higher standard of 
conduct than whether or not a Member can be indicted or convicted. The 
broader resolution gained the support of 182 Members--a substantial 
number, but still short of passage.
  Let me make an appeal to the newer Members of this body, those who 
have been elected in the past few election cycles: Most of you 
campaigned on principles of good government, that Congress should take 
its article 1 powers seriously, that we should be careful and 
deliberative stewards of the public purse.
  I have some sobering news. It's now up to you to uphold the dignity 
and decorum of this institution. It's now up to you to ensure that 
those who view our proceedings from afar will have enduring respect for 
what is done here.
  This duty would normally fall to the more seasoned Members of this 
body, particularly those who have been entrusted with leadership 
positions. One would assume that they would feel it their obligation to 
be the guardians of the reputation and the dignity of the people's 
House. But this is not the case.
  For whatever reason, those who have been chosen to lead have chosen 
not to lead on this issue. While the Department of Justice 
investigations swirl around us, while some of our former Members sit in 
prison, we have opted for business as usual, insisting that campaign 
contributions do not constitute ``financial interest,'' whistling past 
the Justice Department as we go.
  Those who have been entrusted in leadership positions may tell you 
that securing no-bid contracts, even for those who give you campaign 
contributions, is simply an exercise of your article 1 authority under 
the Constitution. But you know better than that.
  When the President stood in this body 1 week ago and called for an 
end to no-bid contracts, he received a standing ovation. We all stood 
and cheered. But the very next day we passed legislation that provided 
thousands of no-bid contracts, including several to clients of the PMA 
Group--a lobbying group currently under investigation by the Department 
of Justice.
  So here we are. A privileged resolution has been offered that would 
ask the House Ethics Committee to investigate earmarks and campaign 
contributions related to the PMA Group. We will vote on that resolution 
on Thursday.
  This resolution, or something similar to it, will eventually pass. We 
will eventually come to understand that it is beneath the dignity of 
this institution to continue to sweep this issue under the rug and 
pretend that no one will notice.
  It simply isn't right to give no-bid contracts to those who give us 
campaign contributions. I believe that the overwhelming majority of 
this body understands that, regardless of what our leaders may tell us. 
I think an overwhelming majority of this body knows that we need a 
higher standard than we currently employ.
  Madam Speaker, we owe this institution far more than we are giving 
it. Let us vote for this privileged resolution and give it the respect 
it deserves.

                          ____________________