Reps. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Paul Hodes (D-N.H.) still want more documents
related to the now closed ethics committee’s investigation into seven
lawmakers’ ties to PMA Group, a now-defunct lobbying firm under investigation
by the FBI.
The two lawmakers are frustrated by the ethics committee’s refusal to detail
aspects of its probe, including how many witnesses were interviewed and
subpoenaed.
They are asking the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), a board made up of
mainly former lawmakers that makes recommendations to the ethics committee for
further review, to release 250,000 documents it submitted to the ethics panel
when it concluded its initial investigation. Flake and Hodes believe the
release of these documents would spur the House to change its rules governing
the appropriateness of awarding earmarks to campaign contributors.
{mosads}“Given that the committee’s PMA report conceded that there is a widespread
perception of a quid pro quo between earmarks and campaign contributions, it was
particularly troubling that the committee would assert that it does not have
jurisdiction to institute changes in House practices,” Flake said in a statement.
“Let’s not forget that the Ethics committee’s real name is the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct. If the committee won’t even set a minimum
standard for House practices, who will?”
“There are still far too many questions about the alleged pay-for-play earmark
scheme involving Members of Congress and Washington lobbyists,” said Hodes.
“It is simply unacceptable that we still do not know whether these very
serious allegations were investigated to the fullest. We need to hold politicians
feet to the fire and hold them accountable for how they spend our tax dollars.”
The OCE typically does not comment on investigations and did notvimmediately
respond to a request for comment.
The ethics panel on Monday night issued a statement explaining the context of
its PMA probe in response to a flurry of resolutions sponsored by Flake over
the last few months that demanded to know why the committee had closed its case
without finding any rules violations.
Flake used privileged resolutions, a parliamentary maneuver, to force the
ethics committee to explain its actions. The House did not vote in favor of the
resolutions, instead referring them to the ethics committee for consideration
in votes along party lines.
The panel defended the five-page report it previously issued on the PMA matter
and said it could consider reopening the cases if new information came to
light.
“The committee’s action to date does not preclude further action related to
these matters should new information warranting action become available,” it
concluded in a statement issued by Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and
ranking member Jo Bonner (R-Ala.).
The ethics committee exonerated seven House members, many of whom sit on the
Appropriations Defense subcommittee, of any wrongdoing earlier this year. The
panel dismissed allegations that the members used their influence on the Appropriations
Committee to help PMA clients win tens of millions of dollars’ worth of earmarks
in return for campaign contributions from PMA Group lobbyists and their
clients.
PMA shuttered its offices late last year following an FBI raid. The lobbying
group had close ties to the late Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the chairman of the
subcommittee on defense spending in the House.
The ethics panel cleared Murtha, as well as Reps. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), Jim Moran
(D-Va.), Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.), Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), Bill Young (R-Fla.)
and Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.).
The OCE previously cleared five of the seven members, but recommended further
review of Vicslosky’s and Tiahrt’s activities. Visclosky and his chief of staff
remain under FBI investigation.
After the ethics committee dismissed the allegations against all seven members,
watchdogs questioned whether the ethics committee had thoroughly reviewed the
matter.
In its statement Monday, the panel said it had reviewed close to a quarter of a
million documents, in an investigation covering more than 40 companies with
ties to PMA, and interviews with 32 member offices, although members were not
subject to direct in-person inquiries.
“In reaching its conclusions, the committee relied on the totality of this
large magnitude of information,” Lofgren and Bonner said in the statement.
They also appeared to address criticism that the report was only five pages by
arguing that they would harm future ethics investigations by describing their
methods and actions in the PMA probe.
“As in other investigations, although the committee has discussed in general
terms the scope of its investigation, it did not address specific details of
various investigative steps taken by the committee,” they said. “To do so would
compromise the investigative
capabilities of the committee in this and future matters by chilling voluntary
cooperation.”
The panel, however, has issued extensively detailed reports in the recent past.
Its Feb. 26 report admonishing Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y) for taking a corporate-sponsored
trip to the Caribbean was more than 200 pages, excluding exhibits and
appendices.