Earmark Probe Focusing on Former Top Aide to Visclosky

A federal investigation into defense contracts awarded through congressional earmarks is increasingly focused on a former top aide to Rep. Peter J. Visclosky (D-Ind.) who worked with the congressman on funding requests from clients of a powerful lobbying firm, according to two sources familiar with the probe.

Investigators have gathered evidence that Charles E. Brimmer, Visclosky's former longtime chief of staff, suggested to some lobbyists that companies seeking Visclosky's help in getting Pentagon funds would need to commit to a program of donations to the member of the Appropriations defense subcommittee, the sources said. The Justice Department is trying to determine whether Brimmer's proposal constituted quid pro quo, an illegal act in which a public official requests something of value in exchange for an official action.

Brimmer, 55, Visclosky's right-hand man on political and appropriation decisions, announced in late May that he would retire from his post, days after investigators subpoenaed records from Visclosky's offices and from Brimmer personally. Visclosky said then that investigators sought information about the congressman's dealings with the PMA Group, a lobbying powerhouse that also has been a focus of the investigation.

When the FBI carted away records from PMA's Arlington offices roughly a year ago, agents already were pointedly asking for information about Brimmer, according to the two sources, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the probe.

Brimmer, who had worked on the congressman's staff for two decades and served as his chief of staff since 1992, could not be reached Friday at his home. His attorney, James Cole, declined to comment on the investigation. The office of Visclosky, a 13-term congressman, did not respond to phone calls and e-mailed questions.

The federal probe has swirled for 18 months around the Appropriations defense subcommittee and zeroed in on its most controversial practice -- the earmarking of Pentagon funds by members of Congress for favored companies. Earmarks are added to the budget by committee members and do not go through the competitive or approval processes required for most government contracts.

Visclosky, a leader in earmarking, announced in June that he would temporarily step down from a subcommittee chairmanship that allowed him to oversee $33 billion in water- and energy-project spending. He said at the time that his work always had been done with "the greatest of integrity."

"I have represented the people of northwest Indiana to the best of my ability, and I have always abided by the law and adhered to the rules and code of ethics of the House," Visclosky said then.

Visclosky, the third-ranking member of the Appropriations defense subcommittee, has sponsored $34 million in defense earmarks for PMA clients since last year, when Congress began requiring members to attach their names to earmark requests. After the federal probe began, Visclosky distanced himself from his past earmarking practices, announcing in April that he would no longer request earmarks for private, for-profit companies or for PMA clients. "There is a controversy that has attached to PMA, and I want to be focused on the problems we are trying to solve in northwest Indiana," Visclosky said at the time.

Visclosky's earmarks were among $299 million in defense appropriations that PMA secured for its clients in 2008.

PMA was founded by Paul Magliochetti, a friend of the defense subcommittee's chairman, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), and company officials and their relatives became major campaign contributors to subcommittee members. They gave their largest volume of donations over the past 10 years to two lawmakers: Murtha ($2.4 million) and Visclosky ($1.4 million).

Visclosky has spent $100,000 on his legal bills, according to recently released campaign reports. In August, the Federal Election Commission also granted approval for him to pay legal bills for current and former staff members. The FEC approval came despite concerns that it could create conflicts if the congressman's aides were called to testify about his decision making.