The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS AND THE DIGNITY OF THE HOUSE” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H4481-H4482 on June 15, 2010.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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 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.
____________________
