Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 2918, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2010

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I, too, went to the Rules Committee to testify last night to try to have an amendment ruled in order, an amendment that was germane; there was no problem with its relevance to the bill. It was not dilatory, it wasn't seeking to delay anything. It was to address a very real problem that we have.

The problem that we have, Mr. Speaker, is that we have, that we know of, a number of investigations from the Justice Department going on right now examining the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions. They're looking at the process of circular fundraising where Members of Congress will secure earmarks, or in other words, no-bid contracts for their campaign contributors. The money goes out, taxpayer money, campaign money comes back in.

Now, whether we want to admit it or not, the Justice Department is looking at this. We can talk until we're blue in the face, say there is no quid pro quo here. We're giving earmarks to those that we think need them. These no-bid contracts are going to companies that really need them. And whether or not they turned around and individuals from that organization or the lobbyists that represent them, if they contribute tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars back to my campaign committee, that's okay because it's not a quid pro quo. Whether we say that until we're blue in the face doesn't change the fact that the Justice Department seems to feel differently, and they're conducting investigations.

Now I think we do feel differently because just a few weeks ago, we authorized or instructed our own Ethics Committee to reveal whether or not they were conducting an investigation that essentially looks into the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions. They have since indicated that they are.

So now we have the Justice Department looking into the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions. We have our own Ethics Committee looking into that relationship, and yet we have, Mr. Speaker, our own Ethics Committee still issuing guidance to the Members of this body that campaign contributions do not constitute financial interest. In other words, whether or not you can contribute or give an earmark to a company, that company's executives and their lobbyists can turn around and give you campaign contributions the next day or the day before. That's okay according to guidance coming from our own Ethics Committee--the same Ethics Committee that is investigating the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions.

The purpose of the Ethics Committee, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that the dignity of this House is maintained, that we rise above it all, that we have a standard that is perhaps higher than perhaps others have. We should have a standard that's higher than whether or not Members can be indicted or convicted over behavior that takes place here. Yet, we're allowing the Ethics Committee to issue guidance that says, It's okay. That, Mr. Speaker, is wrong.

What this amendment would have done is said that no money could be spent in the bill to implement that guidance. I can't think of many more pressing issues in this House than that. It's germane. There is no reason that it couldn't be brought up and be part of the amendments that were offered today, but the Rules Committee said ``no'' for no other reason than they didn't want to stop the practice.

We have come to rely on earmarking to raise money around here. That's the bottom line. And we can't continue it if we're going to uphold the dignity of this body.

Mr. Speaker, at some point we will decouple the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions. We have to. I just hope that we do it sooner rather than later and not have to wait to uphold the dignity of this body

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source