In response to the recent article 'S.C. congressman Clyburn rips ethics probes', which appeared in the Savannah Morning News, CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan penned this letter to the editor which ran today:

Clyburn wrong to blast ethics watchdogs

Rep. James Clyburn's recent comments about the Office of Congressional Ethics and my organization, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, suggest it is the congressman, and not CREW, who has "gotten a wild hair" and "just say things." (" S.C. congressman Clyburn rips ethics probes," Aug. 28).

First, contrary to Rep. Clyburn's statements, the OCE has played no role in the ethics investigation into Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-NY. Mr. Rangel filed an ethics complaint against himself with the House Ethics Committee. The committee then conducted a two-year investigation, found reason to believe Mr. Rangel violated House rules and federal law, and scheduled a hearing on the matter for this fall.

The OCE did investigate former Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga. - following a complaint by CREW (.pdf) - and reported that Mr. Deal had abused his office to protect his personal business interests and lied on his personal financial disclosure forms. The Department of Justice found enough merit in the report to open a criminal investigation.

A number of Congressional Black Caucus members as well as Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, share Mr. Clyburn's view that the OCE should be gutted, but it's not because the office has an "accusatory mentality about every violation." It is because the OCE is doing its job: Holding members of Congress accountable for unethical conduct. Thanks to the OCE, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., will be forced to explain her intervention with the Treasury Department on behalf of a bank in which her husband has a financial interest.

The OCE was created in the wake of public outrage over congressional indifference to scandals involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas - matters on which CREW was focusing public attention when the Ethics Committee was sitting it out. Even now, the OCE fights with one hand tied behind its back. The office has no subpoena power and cannot insist anyone speak to its investigators. Responsible leaders should talk of strengthening the OCE, not dismantling it.

MELANIE SLOAN

Executive Director
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
Washington, D.C.

Our Friday afternoon has gotten a little more interesting. We’ve received word that embattled Nevada Senator John Ensign (R-NV) is not only blaming CREW for his troubles, but calling us out in a letter soliciting funds for his legal defense (.pdf). We're flattered, but by still failing to take responsibility for his actions Senator Ensign is only proving our point.

As we reported when the senator first set up his Legal Expense Trust Fund, "This isn't the only financial avenue available to members of Congress who want to pay their legal fees with other people's money. They can also use their campaign accounts and many do.”

Claiming he's been accused of things he "absolutely did not do" the senator has vowed to fight on. So will we. Whether calling for Charlie Rangel's resignation or spotlighting David Vitter’s deplorable behavior, CREW will keep on challenging elected officials who continue to place their own interests above those of the country.

Who says Friday the 13th brings only bad news? Thanks to the junior senator from Nevada, today more than ever, we know that CREW is definitely on the right track!

Thanks John!

View all our related documents here.

.

Seeking an end to case dismissals without rationale or explanation, today in U.S. District Court CREW filed suit (.pdf) against the Federal Election Commission (FEC). 

Cases in front of the commission, which his made up of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, often result in a 3-3 deadlock with no explanation provided to the complainants.  Deprived of any rationale for their decision, the 60 day window for filing a suit in federal court often expires without any review of the decision taking place.

Said CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan:

The FEC is deliberately manipulating the law to conceal its decisions in the hopes of running out the clock on any potential appeals of its decisions. This is wrong, and it must stop.

Read the press release here

View the full complaint in CREW v. FEC (.pdf)

In response to the Justice Department announcing that it will not seek criminal charges against Rep. Don Young (R-AK), CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan released the following statement:

“The facts of the case against Rep. Young are as clear as they are disturbing. There is strong evidence that Rep. Young received improper benefits through his relationship with VECO, and it is disappointing that he will not have to answer for them in a court of law. The fact that Rep. Young will not be criminally prosecuted does not mean he did nothing wrong. The congressman must still be held accountable for his misconduct. The House Ethics Committee should immediately take up not only the VECO matter, but also the question of the earmark for a Florida interchange Rep. Young improperly inserted into a previously enrolled bill. In the recent days, the Committee has shown a newfound willingness to police members' conduct by holding two of the chamber’s most senior members’ feet to the fire; Rep. Young should be the third.”

CREW has already questioned the motives behind critics of the for-profit education industry, now the New York Times reports that the Government Accountability Office is looking into the "institutions" themselves.  

Sending undercover investigators posing as students to 15 different colleges, the GAO found recruiters mislead students about the quality and costs of their courses, with four colleges going so far as to openly encourage the "students" to lie on their financial aid applications.

At one college in Texas, a recruiter encouraged the undercover investigator not to report $250,000 in savings, saying it was “not the government’s business.” At a Pennsylvania college, the financial representative told an undercover applicant who had reported a $250,000 inheritance that he should have answered “zero” when asked about money he had in savings — and then told him she would “correct” his form by reducing the reported assets to zero, a change she later confirmed by e-mail and voicemail.

With 1.8 million students enrolled, and over $24 billion in federal money going towards for-profit colleges in 2009 alone, all aspects of the industry deserve closer scrutiny.

Read the full GAO report here (.pdf)

In an interesting article at OpEdNews, Roger Schuler takes a closer look at where some of Sen. Shelby's quarter of a billion dollars in earmarks is going.  One recipient in particular, the University of Alabama System, has a track record littered with fraud, dysfunction and discrimination.

A federal jury found that UA discriminated against former medical resident Seema Gupta based on her Hindu religion. Numerous other lawsuits have been settled or are currently in litigation.

The article lists some of these "numerous other lawsuits" and offenses against the UA system including fraud on the academic, insurance and health-care fronts.

Read the full article here.

Disclosure: The author was previously terminated from a job a UAB 

Yesterday, the House Ethics Committee laid out the charges against Rep. Charles Rangel. It's looking like there will be a trial will be held in September. But, we're also getting the back story on how this process evolved. It took two years -- and it wasn't easy:

Documents released Thursday evening show that Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and an ethics panel investigating him were constantly at odds over the last two years.

The contentious relationship between the 20-term lawmaker and the ethics committee that concluded Rangel had violated House rules sheds new light on why a settlement wasn’t reached before Thursday’s public hearing.

It is clear from the documents that there was an adversarial relationship between the former Ways and Means Committee chairman and the ethics panel.

Another breaking developmental. Now, it appears Rangel will stand trial:

The House ethics committee laid out 13 charges of House rules violations against Representative Charles B. Rangel on Thursday, and began the process for a rare public trial on the charges.

The move came after Mr. Rangel, a veteran congressman, failed to reach a settlement to avoid the rare and potentially embarrassing proceeding before the committee gathered at 1 p.m.

Mr. Rangel’s lawyers continued to hope they could still settle the case.

There have been numerous reports over the past few hours about the pending ethics trial of Rep. Charles Rangel. The latest, from CNN, indicates that a settlement has been reached:

A New York Democratic colleague of Rep. Charles Rangel said Thursday that Rangel and the House ethics committee are "close to a settlement" involving Rangel's alleged violations of House rules.

Earlier, Rangel said he doesn't plan to attend an ethics committee hearing, where the allegations were to be made public.

The committee delayed the start of the hearing without giving a reason, increasing speculation that lawyers for Rangel might be trying to reach a deal with the panel to avoid the public airing of the veteran legislator's alleged wrongdoing.

The practice of "secret holds" could face a vote in the Senate sometime soon. The votes are there, based on the public commitments made:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) added a bill to eliminate the practice of secret holds on nominees to the Senate calendar on Wednesday.

Reid added Sen. Ron Wyden's (D-Ore.) legislation to do away with the longstanding Senate tradition of being able to anonymously halt a president's nominees in the Senate.

Adding the legislation to the calendar has the effect of moving the legislation closer to the point where Reid could bring it up for a vote.

If Reid does bring it up, it appears that he may have the votes to do away with the practice after Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) lobbied Senate colleagues to end it. Sixty-seven votes are needed to change Senate rules, and McCaskill, as of late June, had said she'd gathered 68.

Wonder if anyone will filibuster this legislation.