[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 2]
[House]
[Page 2903]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 MAKING PUBLIC INFORMATION GATHERED BY HOUSE COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF 
                            OFFICIAL CONDUCT

  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, just minutes ago I introduced a privileged 
resolution that would require the House Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct to make public information gathered for its probe into 
the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions.
  In a report released earlier this month, the Standards Committee 
concluded that it could find no evidence of a quid pro quo regarding 
the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions. The 
committee exercised its authority under its own rules to release 
information gathered by the Office of Congressional Ethics, but 
released nothing more than a summary of its own findings.
  According to one media source, ``the committee report was five pages 
long and included no documentation of any evidence collected or any 
interviews conducted by the committee beyond a statement that the 
investigation included extensive document reviews and interviews with 
numerous witnesses.''
  I think it is fair to ask what the Standards Committee did regarding 
this investigation. We know the Standards Committee reviewed documents 
gathered by the Office on Congressional Ethics. What were these 
documents? We were also told the Standards Committee interviewed 
numerous witnesses. Who were they?
  We know that the OCE has no subpoena power. It cannot compel 
cooperation from whom it investigates. Let me give an example of where 
it might have been useful to have some followup information from the 
Standards Committee.
  Page 17 of the report notes that the OCE had reason to believe that a 
witness withheld information. It also notes that many remaining former 
PMA employees refused to consent to interviews. In addition, it noted 
that the OCE was unable to obtain any evidence within PMA's possession. 
I think it is reasonable to ask whether the Standards Committee issued 
subpoenas or otherwise sought cooperation from these reluctant 
witnesses. It appears they did not.
  Perhaps what is most troubling about this investigation is that the 
Standards Committee concludes that while they could find no evidence of 
a quid pro quo between campaign contributions and earmarks, there is a 
widespread perception among campaign contributors and earmark 
recipients that such a quid pro quo exists.
  It should be noted that the ``perception'' or ``appearance'' has been 
sufficient grounds for admonishment of a Member of Congress by the 
Standards Committee as recently as 2004. Yet despite finding that there 
is a widespread appearance of impropriety here, the Standards Committee 
provides no guidance to Members of Congress as to how they might avoid 
such an appearance. The existence of such a perception, I might add, 
inures to the benefit of Members of Congress and their campaign 
committees.
  I have long advocated for a change to the Standard Committee's 
current guidance regarding earmarks and campaign contributions and have 
introduced legislation to this effect. House rules already require 
Members who earmark funds to certify that they and their families have 
no financial interest in the organization receiving earmark dollars, 
yet the Standards Committee states that campaign contributions do not 
constitute financial interests. Classifying campaign contributions as 
financial interests would go a long way toward dispelling the 
widespread perception of a quid pro quo and would do much to lift the 
ethical cloud hanging over this body.
  As an aside, while we are updating guidance from the Standards 
Committee, we should certainly update the recent guidance implying that 
Members of Congress who, for example, earmark money for a freeway off-
ramp next to property they own, thereby inflating the value of this 
property, are not in violation of House rules as long as they are not 
the ``sole beneficiaries'' of such a rise in value. Such a standard 
does not pass the test of smell or laughter.
  When behavior that is condoned by this body lends itself to a 
widespread perception of impropriety, we have an obligation not only to 
change the behavior, but to change the rules that police and govern 
such behavior.
  Mr. Speaker, we owe this wonderful institution far more than we are 
giving it. The widespread perception of the dependent relationship 
between earmarks and campaign contributions carries no partisan 
advantage. The cloud that hangs over this body rains on Republicans and 
Democrats alike, and we will all benefit when this cloud is lifted.

                          ____________________