From The Hill:

The House Republican Steering Committee appointed Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) to fill an open Appropriations Committee seat that has been vacated by embattled Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.).

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced the change in a statement and congratulated Calvert.

Prior to the selection, questions had been raised about whether Calvert should be appointed to the committee because of allegations that he helped facilitate the passage of an earmark to benefit himself financially. The lawmaker has denied any wrongdoing.

That doesn't show much of a commitment to ethics. Ironically, given that Rep. Doolittle was forced out of his seat because of the raid, the FBI has been investigating Rep. Calvert for nearly a year.

Melanie Sloan, made the following statement on Calvert's appointment:

Clearly the House Republicans have decided that ethics simply do not count in Congress. Why would the minority choose to replace one member under federal investigation with another member also under federal investigation? While Rep. Calvert has not yet had his home raided, the FBI is probing his conduct. No member of Congress under investigation by the Department of Justice should have the authority to make budgetary decisions about that agency. Rep. Calvert is the wrong person to take over Rep. Doolittle’s appropriations committee seat.

Similarly, Republicans continue to demonstrate their indifference to ethics by allowing Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), also under federal investigation and the ranking member of the appropriations committee, to remain in his post. It is well past time for Rep. Lewis relinquish his plum assignment pending the outcome of the ongoing investigation.

Both Calvert and Doolittle were named in Beyond DeLay, CREW's list of the 20 most corrupt members of Congress.

The ethics news of the past couple weeks has been tough on the House GOP leadership. There are investigations swirling around several members of the GOP caucus. In the past, the leaders basically ignored the ethical scandals. The Hill reports on the "challenges on ethics" and the "critical test" facing Minority Leader John Boehner:

House Republicans are engaged in a two-front war. One is the public relations battle over how to proceed in Iraq. But even closer to home, they are facing new challenges on ethics—the other major issue that plagued them during the 2006 campaign and lead to the loss of their majority.

Tuesday’s indictments of two allies of former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (D-Calif.) on an array of fraud, conspiracy and money laundering charges could ensnare more GOP lawmakers as prosecutors negotiate the terms of their cases. Coupled with new and ongoing Justice Department investigations into the land deals of two other House Republicans from California, Gary Miller and Ken Calvert, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) is facing a critical test on how to tackle the ethics front while maintaining a cohesive conference.

The House doesn't have a great history of policing itself on ethics issues. The GOP caucus -- and the Democrats -- will be well-served by a new Office of Public Integrity.

Today, CREW held a tele-news conference to discuss the most recent events in the Foley scandal.  Given the rapidly changing events, including Speaker Hastert's statement this afternoon, we wanted to share with everyone the full text of Melanie Sloan's statement.  It provides important background and asks some key questions:

Earlier today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent a letter to Glenn Fine, the Inspector General at the Department of Justice, asking for an investigation into why the FBI has failed to look into the inappropriate emails sent by Rep. Mark Foley to a former House page before now.

On July 21, 2006, CREW received the emails.  As a former prosecutor, a review of the emails sent off alarm bells for me.  The fact that Rep. Foley had used a private email account and had asked the teenager what he wanted for his birthday and how school was and had asked for a photograph caused me great concern.  These are strategies that pedophiles often use to draw in their victims.

As a result, after reviewing the emails, I called a special agent in the Washington Field Office of the FBI.  I explained what I had received and said that I wanted to pass them along.  By email, I then sent copies of the emails to the agent.  By telephone, the agent confirmed that she had received them and understood them to be email exchanges between Mark Foley and a young man.

I never heard back from the FBI, but I did not expect to.  The FBI cannot share the fruits of its investigation with someone who is not in law enforcement.  Nonetheless, I was surprised to learn this morning that the FBI was just beginning an investigation today – meaning that they had not begun an investigation when I sent them the emails back in July.

I also noted that Speaker Hastert sent AG Alberto Gonzales a letter requesting an investigation not only into Rep. Foley’s conduct, but also into who knew what about it and why they failed to report it.  As a result, it seems important that an investigation should also encompass the FBI’s failure to act.

The fact is everyone involved in this matter has dropped the ball.  Although the chronology keeps changing, we’ve now heard that pages were warned at least 5 years ago to be careful to Rep. Foley.  When Rep. Alexander learned of the inappropriate emails in late 2005, he didn’t call law enforcement, he went to Speaker Hastert’s office.  Alexander also told the clerk of the House, who told John Shimkus, the head of the page board.  Then Shimkus went to Foley who explained that he was “mentoring” the boy.  Shimkus told Foley to cease all further contact with the page, which suggests that Shimkus hardly thought the emails were completely innocent – otherwise why tell Foley to stop contacting the boy?

Then in February or March of this year, Alexander went to NRCC chairman Reynolds about the emails.  Reynolds didn’t call law enforcement either.  Instead, he went directly to the Speaker, who did nothing.

In the Spring of 2006, Majority Leader Boehner learned about the email, but he also failed to call law enforcement.

Clearly, the House leadership didn’t take a single step to protect the pages or any other young men from Rep. Foley’s sexual advances.  And as we’ve seen from the much more sexually explicit instant messages, Foley certainly didn’t change his behavior an iota.  If anything, he may have been emboldened by his leadership’s implicit acceptance of his behavior.  They caught him once and didn’t do anything so why stop?

As outrageous as the inaction by the House is, the inaction by the FBI is equally egregious.  After all, the FBI is supposed to be above political considerations and AG Alberto Gonzales has made the prosecution of those who pray on children a Justice Department priority.

So why, given that the FBI knew about the emails in July did they merely sit on them?  Did someone make a political decision not to investigate a sitting powerful member of Congress?  Was the investigation quashed by a political appointee?

Was protecting an ally of the President more important than protecting children from a sexual predator?

The American public deserves the full truth on this and that’s why we sent the letter to IG Fine asking for an investigation into the FBI’s inaction.

The Buffalo News covered several aspects of the growing Foley scandal today.  Congressman Tom Reynolds, who chairs the National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC), was one of the first members of House Republican leadership to be informed about the Foley emails.  The congressional district that Reynolds represents includes the suburbs and exurbs of Buffalo.

The paper includes an article on the failure of House Republican leadership to respond in a manner appropriate to the situation. That paper interviewed several experts on child safety and sexual predators:

But critics described the lack of response as unacceptable, especially given the possibility that other children could have been endangered.

"This is something that should have been referred to the district attorney's office immediately," said Sharon Sisti, a clinical social worker and assistant professor of human services at Hilbert College. "Our responsibility as a society is to protect all kids, not just one."

Dr. Timothy M. Osberg, a psychologist and professor of psychology at Niagara University, said he viewed the situation as similar to that of reporters who are required by law to report evidence of child abuse.

The e-mail, he said, coupled with the boy's reaction to it, "should send up red flags."

And "there's a call to action" for an adult who becomes aware of the situation, he added.

Although not overtly sexual, the e-mail echoed the manner in which many sexual predators try to gain the confidence and friendship of a targeted victim, child welfare advocates said.

"It's a way for the perpetrator to test the waters," Sisti said. "Even if there isn't enough to warrant any kind of legal steps, certainly it may fall within the realm of ethics violations."

The safety of the children was obviously not the top concern of the House GOP leaders. That's particularly ironic since the House passed a bill on July 25, 2006 dealing with child sexual predators.  Apparently, no one in the House leadership applied any of their knowledge of that legislation to Foley situation.   

CREW's Melanie Sloan, who upon receiving the emails earlier this summer immediately sent them to the FBI, was also interviewed for this article:

But Foley's e-mail last year alone was enough for House leaders to relay the matter to authorities, said Melanie Sloan, a former prosecutor of sex crimes against children and the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

"That nobody thought to go anywhere to protect kids or discipline Foley is shocking," Sloan said. "Anybody who knew should have done something."

Everybody on Capitol Hill who knew should have done something. They did nothing.