[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 6]
[House]
[Page 7589]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) for 3 minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, a little later today, I will bring another 
privileged resolution to the floor asking for the Ethics Committee to 
look into the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions. 
This will be the fourth one that has been offered. Each time these have 
been tabled and we haven't instructed the Ethics Committee to look into 
this. I hope that that changes.
  Several years ago, we had a scandal involving earmarks, the Jack 
Abramoff scandal. Mr. Abramoff now sits in Federal prison. Some staff 
members and lobbyists and others also were implicated in that scandal. 
The leadership at that time was slow to recognize the scandal that was 
there, and I would say today that the leadership is also slow to 
recognize what is going on here. There are investigations going on 
around us. The Department of Justice is investigating--we know this 
from various press reports--the relationship between earmarks and 
campaign contributions.
  Let me just read a few of the whereas clauses from the resolution 
that will be introduced later today. This one is a little more 
specific. The first resolution that was introduced had to do just with 
earmarks and campaign contributions in general. The second one had to 
do with earmarks related to the PMA Group. The next one just with 
earmarks related to the PMA Group for FY09 defense spending. This one 
has to do specifically with the head of PMA, Mr. Magliocchetti, whom we 
were told had his home raided by the FBI a while ago. Keep in mind that 
the PMA Group was a lobbying firm, a powerhouse lobbying firm, that 
over a period of 8 years collected more than $100 million in fees from 
its clients, mostly for seeking earmarks from this Congress. Yet when 
the news came that the FBI was investigating and had raided the office, 
that firm, that I believe brought in about $17 million last year alone 
in revenue, imploded, within a week. By the end of this month it will 
be completely gone, dissolved. And when you read some of allegations 
that are going around in the press, you don't wonder why.
  CQ Today reported recently that Mr. Magliocchetti and nine of his 
relatives--two children, daughter-in-law, current wife, his ex-wife, 
ex-wife's parents, sister and brother-in-law--provided $1.5 million in 
political contributions from 2000 to 2008. Now if you look at some of 
the occupations listed by some of those who were giving $100,000 over 
just a couple of years--school teacher, police sergeant, homemaker--
does that not raise somebody's antenna that something might be amiss 
here?
  We can't simply let the Justice Department's investigation dictate 
what we do here in the House. We should move forward ourselves. We 
shouldn't say that whether or not you can be indicted or convicted 
should be the standard that we uphold here in the House to uphold the 
dignity and decorum of this body. Madam Speaker, this body, this 
Congress, deserves better than that. That's why I hope that we will 
actually ask this time the Ethics Committee to investigate this matter.

                          ____________________