Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington - Ethics Committee

Jail sentence likely for Rep. Fossella in DUI case

crew — Thu, 22 May 2008 09:04:50 -0500

Yesterday, we got the shocking news that the House Ethics Committee deferred action on the ethics complaint against Rep. Vito Fossella. Today comes word that Fossella could be representing his district from a jail cell:

If Rep. Vito Fossella (R-N.Y.) is unable to reach a deal with prosecutors on his DUI arrest, he will likely have to serve five days in jail before the end of the year, making him only the fourth sitting member of Congress to be locked up following a criminal conviction and dragging his troubles back into the spotlight just as Republicans were counting on them having vanished.

Not since Rep. John Dowdy (D-Texas) was sent to prison for his 1972 conviction for bribery, obstruction of justice and perjury has a sitting member of the House been sentenced to jail or prison following a criminal conviction, according to the House historian.

Ethics Complaint against Rep. Fossella generating media interest. We need the Ethics Committee pays attention.

crew — Mon, 19 May 2008 12:45:28 -0500

Just this morning, CREW announced we were sending an ethics complaint against Rep. Vito Fossella to the House Ethics Committee.

The New York Daily News is reporting on that development:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington announced today it sent an ethics complaint against Rep. Vito Fossella to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct seeking an investigation into whether he violated any travel rules and/or the prohibition on conduct that reflects badly on the body.

As is The Hill:

An ethics watchdog group filed a formal ethics complaint against Rep. Vito Fossella (R-N.Y.) on Monday.

The first official complaint against the Staten Island Republican, filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), asks the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate whether Fossella violated any House rules when he traveled overseas with retired Air Force Lt. Col. Laura Fay.

"The House Ethics Committee has demonstrated its irrelevance once again"

rusty — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:57:04 -0600

Melanie Sloan released the following statement today following the House Ethics Committee's announcement that it would begin an investigation into the activities of Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) who was indicted last week:

The House Ethics Committee has demonstrated its irrelevance once again by announcing an investigation of a member of Congress – Rick Renzi (R-AZ) already indicted by the Department of Justice. The trick would be for the Ethics Committee to spearhead an investigation of a member alleged to have engaged in misconduct before the Justice Department gets involved. Mr. Renzi undoubtedly will have retired – perhaps to a federal penitentiary – before the Ethics Committee ever takes any action against him. The current stalemate on ethics reform simply highlights that despite all the rhetoric, members still are not serious about taking on their unethical colleagues.

CREW to House Ethics Committee: Investigate Rep. Lamborn (R-CO)

crew — Wed, 5 Sep 2007 10:40:51 -0500

Yesterday, CREW today sent a letter to the House Ethics Committee, requesting an investigation into whether Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) violated House rules by improperly threatening two constituents who revealed that Rep. Lamborn had accepted campaign contributions from the gaming industry. The letter and other documents can be found here.

On August 24, 2007, a community newspaper in Colorado printed a letter from Jonathan and Anna Bmiha that raised concerns about Rep. Lamborn's receipt of campaign contributions in the amount of $1 ,000 from International Game Technology ("IGT") PAC and $500 from Marc Murphy, an executive of Bronco Billy's Casino in Cripple Creek, Colorado. IGT makes gambling equipment. Reports filed with the Federal Election Commission confirm that Rep. Lamborn's campaign committee received the contributions.

In apparent response to the letter, Rep. Lamborn placed two separate calls to the Bartha's home telephone number and in each case left a voice message when no one answered the phone. Emery, The Denver Post, Sept. 2,2007. In his first message, Rep. Lamborn alleged that the couple's letter contained "something that is blatantly false," urged them to call him "at your earliest convenience" and stated "there are consequences to this kind of thing."

In his follow-up message, Rep. Lamborn stated, "I'd rather resolve this on a Scriptural level but if you are unwilling to do that I will be forced to take other steps ..."

Today's edition of The Hill reports that Rep. Lamborn has apologized to the couple, but that there could still be ethical implications:

Ken Gross, an ethics lawyer at Skadden Arps, Slate, Meagher, and Flom, said Lamborn’s voice mails do not appear to cross any legal lines, although it’s not something “you necessarily want repeated on the front page of the paper.”

Former ethics committee chairman Hefley, however, disagreed. While it would be unlikely for the ethics committee to launch an investigation of the matter on its own, he said, the panel would be more likely to start looking into such a matter if it received a complaint letter from the couple involved.

After reading Lamborn’s apology letter at press time, Anna Bartha said the couple’s feelings haven’t changed.

Oh, so now the GOP House leaders are outraged about ethics violations

crew — Wed, 6 Jun 2007 10:10:54 -0500

Yesterday, House MInority Leader John Boehner demonstrated the new-found outrage of his caucus on the issue of ethics. Boehner really wants an ethics investigation of Rep. Jefferson. Now, keep in mind, there were no ethics investigations of former GOP Representatives Randy "Duke" Cunningham and Bob Ney. But Boehner wants more -- now:

The Republican resolution called for the ethics committee to investigate Jefferson, who was indicted Monday on 16 counts of bribery and corruption. The resolution, which specifically called on the committee to look into whether Jefferson should be expelled, passed 373-26. Also, 13 members, including members of the ethics committee, voted “present.”

Republicans stressed that Democrats had not renewed the ethics subcommittee investigating Jefferson since taking power five months ago. They noted that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) prevented the subcommittee from being named because she did not select potential members for investigative subcommittees until Tuesday – after Jefferson was indicted.

“It’s somewhat of a sad state of affairs that this committee wasn’t formed until today and it took this indictment to get this subcommittee named,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).

It's somewhat of a sad state of affairs that the Ethics Committee hasn't done anything for years. Therein lies the bigger problem. And, even now, it takes an indictment for the Ethics Committee to launch an investigation.

Rep. Jefferson will face ethics investigation as House sets new standard

crew — Wed, 6 Jun 2007 08:51:02 -0500

Yesterday, the U.S. House adopted a new standard for ethics investigations: an indictment warrants an automatic investigation. We also learned that the House Ethics Committee is undertaking an investigation of the recently indicted Congressman from Louisiana, William Jefferson:

Under pressure from Republicans, the House ethics committee announced Tuesday it would open an inquiry into the conduct of Representative William J. Jefferson, who relinquished his sole committee assignment in the wake of his indictment on corruption charges.

“Allegations such as these are extremely serious,” said Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Democrat of Ohio and chairwoman of the ethics panel. “It is always an issue of concern when a sitting elected official is charged with a crime.”

The committee sought to pre-empt Republican leaders, who later Tuesday forced a House vote on a resolution calling for the panel to investigate Mr. Jefferson’s conduct and recommend whether he should be expelled from the House. Democrats countered with a proposal that would require the ethics committee to automatically investigate any lawmaker under indictment or report within 30 days why it had chosen not to. Both proposals were approved overwhelmingly by the House.

Ethics Committee investigation planned for Jefferson? We could know soon.

crew — Tue, 5 Jun 2007 13:43:09 -0500

Based on reporting from The Politico, it appears the House is setting in motion an ethics committee investigation of Rep. William Jefferson. Could that mean the House Ethics Committee is actually going to do something? We'll see. Apparently, even that moribund committee can't ignore a 16 count indictment:

Democrats are also expecting the House ethics committee to announce that it is beginning an investigation into Jefferson's case, said the leadership aides. Pelosi will first have to select 10 Democrats for an "ethics pool," something Republicans have already done. Then a four-member investigative subcommittee on Jefferson can be created -- one Democrat and one Republican from the ethics committee itself, and then one Democrat and one Republican from the ethics pool. The investigative subcommittee would review the 16-count federal indictment handed down by the Alexandria, Va., grand jury on Monday and then report back whether Jefferson should be expelled.

Update - Here are the House Democrats selected for the "ethics pool," which means one of them is likely to be named to an investigative subcommittee reviewing the Jefferson case. This list was just released on the House floor: "INVESTIGATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - Pursuant to clause 5(a)(4)(A) of rule, and the order of the House of January 4, 2007, the Chair announced that the Speaker had named the following Members of the House to be available to serve on investigative subcommittees of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for the 110th Congress: Baldwin of Wisconsin; Crowley of New York; Ellison of Minnesota; Honda of California; Inslee of Washington; Lee of California; Meeks of New York; Napolitano of California; Rothman of New Jersey; and Snyder of Arkansas."

Pelosi and Democratic leaders are trying to pre-empt a privileged resolution to be offered by Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) calling on the ethics panel to take action against Jefferson. The ethics committee announced last Congress that it was looking into the Jefferson matter, long before his indictment, but no action was never taken, and the probe was not reauthorized in this Congress.

House Ethics Committee finds no problem with earmarks for land by Rep. Calvert

crew — Fri, 18 May 2007 10:59:42 -0500

What else would we expect from the House Ethics Committee? They rarely act -- but when they do, there are rarely, if ever, consequences:

The House ethics committee cleared the way for Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) to pursue a $5.6 million earmark for a transit center one-tenth of a mile away from one property and less than a mile from four other properties that he owns in his district.

The ethics committee found that Calvert’s earmark would not “have a direct and foreseeable effect” on his real estate. The evaluation came in a letter to Calvert dated May 3, about two weeks before he announced a plan to submit all earmarks and potential conflicts of interest to the ethics panel for vetting.

Below is an excerpt about Rep. Calvert's land deals from our report, Beyond DeLay. Seems that Calvert's earmarks have had the direct effect of increasing property values. We'd say that's a "direct and foreseeable effect," but we're not the House Ethics Committee:

In 2005, Rep. Calvert and his real estate partner, Woodrow Harpole Jr., paid $550,000 for a four acre piece of land at Martin Street and Seaton Avenue in Perris, just 4 miles south of the March Air Reserve Base in California. Less than a year after buying the land, without making any improvements to the run down parcel, they sold the property for $985,000, a 79% increase. During this period, Rep. Calvert pushed through an earmark to secure $8 million for an overhaul and expansion of a freeway interchange 16 miles from the property, as well as an additional $1.5 million for commercial development in the area around the airfield.

In another deal, a group of investors bought property a few blocks from the site of a proposed interchange, for $975,000. Within six months, after the earmark for the interchange was appropriated, the parcel of land sold for $1.45 million. Rep. Calvert’s firm received a commission on the sale.

By using his position to earmark funds to increase the value of his own property, Rep. Calvert violated the prohibition against using his position as a member of Congress to advance his own financial interests. as well as the House rule requiring all members of the House to conduct themselves “at all times in a manner that reflects creditably on the House.”

Will any House member file an ethics complaint against Reps. Wilson and Hastings?

crew — Thu, 8 Mar 2007 15:39:31 -0600

One of the top issues for voters in the 2006 was ethics. The National Republican Campaign Committee blamed ethics and corruption for the loss of a number of House seats. Then, the first official act of the new Congress was to pass tougher ethics rules.

Now, the House is confronting yet another serious ethics scandal. Now, we'll figure out if the tough talk is matched by real action.

CREW has asked for ethics investigations of Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA). Coincidentally, Hastings is the ranking Republican member on the House Ethics Committee.

As TPM Muckraker reminds us, the House doesn't have a great recent track record on ethics:

But there's a funny thing about the ethics committee in the House. Unlike in the Senate, a complaint does not automatically trigger a preliminary investigation. For that to happen, a member of the House has to file a referral. And, because of an ongoing ethics truce between the parties, that is exceedingly rare.

Yep. Rare, indeed. No ethics complaints were filed against the now imprisoned Bob Ney (R-OH) or Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA).

Actions will speak louder than campaign rhetoric.

Why the cuts in earth-sciences funding? That's what CREW wants to know

crew — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:53:16 -0600

CREW wants to know why the Bush administration cut funds to earth sciences programs at NASA and NOAA. Those programs provide critical data for hurricane prediction and climate change observation. Our interest was generated by a disturbing report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The FOIA requests and the NAS Report's Executive Summary can be found on our main website.

The NAS report, commissioned by NASA, NOAA and the U.S. Geological Survey to provide an assessment of current earth-observation capabilities as well as a 10-year projection of those capabilities, reiterates alarms that were raised in an interim report published in April 2005: due to funding cuts, U.S. satellite and other earth-observation programs will be unable to provide crucial weather and climate data to scientists for some amount of time in the coming decade, an amount that will increase if current funding trends continue. Among the concerns that the report specifically raises is that the government's ability to forecast hurricanes and El Nino patterns will be compromised. Unless funding for one particular program is restored, the report notes, NOAA will be unable to fulfill its obligations under the Clean Air Act. The authors also note that the outlook may be even worse than projected, since the cuts were still being finalized as the report went to print.

Given the seriousness of the concerns raised by the NAS report, we want to know how and why those funding decisions were made.