[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10733-10734]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS AND THE DIGNITY OF THE HOUSE

  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, recent press reports indicate that the House 
leadership is considering a rules change which would diminish the scope 
and authority of the Office of Congressional Ethics, or OCE. This is an 
apparent response to the OCE's decision to forward information gathered 
during its investigation of the PMA Group to the Justice Department, 
bypassing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the 
process. The narrative seems to be that this is just another example of 
the OCE's succumbing to mission creep or of its growing beyond its 
intended purpose.
  In the interest of full disclosure, I voted against the creation of 
the OCE in 2007. I felt at the time that the House should be able to 
establish appropriate standards and to police its behavior through the 
Standards Committee. I still believe that we should be able to do so, 
but this controversy over the OCE has effectively shown that, when it 
comes to removing the cloud that hangs over this body relating to 
earmarks and to campaign contributions, this body is unwilling, through 
the Standards Committee, to take the necessary action to uphold the 
dignity of the institution.
  After an investigation lasting more than a year, during which some 
200,000 pages of documentation were accumulated, the OCE concluded 
``there is evidence that some of the commercial entities seeking 
earmarks from Members of Congress believe that a political donation to 
the Member has an impact on the Member's decision to author an earmark 
for that donor.''
  This information was forwarded to the Standards Committee, which 
agreed with the conclusion drawn by the OCE. The Standards Committee 
summarized the OCE's findings as follows: ``There is a widespread 
perception among corporations and lobbyists that campaign contributions 
provided enhanced access to Members or a greater chance of obtaining 
earmarks.''
  Then, quite inexplicably, the Standards Committee dropped the matter, 
stating that to address the problem is ``not within the jurisdiction of 
the committee.'' Let me state that again. The Standards Committee said 
that it lacks the authority to establish a standard that will address 
what they conclude is a widespread perception of a link between 
earmarks and campaign contributions. This defies reason.
  At the beginning of the 110th Congress, the House adopted rules 
requiring Members of Congress to certify that they have no ``financial 
interest'' in an earmark's being sponsored. ``Financial interest'' has 
been defined by the Standards Committee to include a direct or a 
foreseeable effect on the pecuniary interest for the Member or his or 
her spouse. The relevant section of the House Ethics Manual then 
states, ``Campaign contributions do not necessarily constitute 
financial interest.''
  How can the Standards Committee lack the authority to set standards 
or to interpret rules? This is particularly confusing when one 
considers that the Standards Committee can address the

[[Page 10734]]

issue by simply amending the interpretation of ``financial interest'' 
it has already promulgated in the House Ethics Manual.
  One need not read very far into the Standards Committee's summary of 
the OCE's PMA investigation before realizing that Members, through 
their campaign committees, derive significant benefit from the 
``widespread perception'' of a link between earmarks and campaign 
contributions. To pretend that this benefit does not constitute 
``financial interest'' is no longer a viable option. We are no longer 
acting in ignorance. The ``wink-wink-nod-nod'' game, which we have all 
known to exist with regard to earmarks and campaign contributions, is 
now well documented, and the Standards Committee's definition of 
``financial interest'' needs to be updated to reflect these findings.
  So where do we go from here?
  We can shoot the messenger, as press reports indicate many Members 
are inclined to do, but the problem with this approach is that the 
message about the link between earmarks and campaign contributions has 
already been delivered.
  What we do with the OCE at this point is very much beside the point. 
It's little more than a sideshow. We need to concern ourselves with the 
dignity of the House. That is our collective responsibility. It does 
not fall outside of our jurisdiction.
  As I have said many times before, Mr. Speaker, the PMA cloud that 
hangs over this body rains on Democrats and Republicans alike. We are 
in this swamp together, but we can't grab a shovel while we are 
covering our eyes and plugging our ears.

                          ____________________