Cross-posted on the American Constitution Society's ACS Blog

On Tuesday, The Hill reported Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) suggested Republican senators using anonymous holds to block executive branch nominations may find themselves referred to the Senate Ethics Committee. My organization, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), suggested this very course of action back in December, and we applaud Sen. Reid (pictured) for taking the first steps to enforce provisions that should have ended the opaque and undemocratic procedure of secret holds years ago.

In 2007, the newly elected Democratic majority passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA), hailed by its supporters as landmark ethics and transparency legislation. Section 512 of HLOGA sought to force senators to reveal themselves when they were "intending to object to a proceeding" - a parliamentary maneuver more commonly known as a "hold." HLOGA did not end the use of holds, but instead forced senators choosing to block an action to place their objection in the Senate calendar next to their name. Unfortunately, the provision did not create a new Senate rule or standing order of the Senate, or include any enforcement mechanism. Rather, members were simply expected to comply and loopholes remained. As a result, CREW's research showed that the procedure outlined under HLOGA was followed only twice since its creation, while senators of both parties continued to place secret holds.

Given that senators had agreed to the change in passing HLOGA, CREW asked the Senate Ethics Committee to find that senators using the secret hold are violating Senate rules by engaging in "improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate." Not surprisingly, the ethics committee punted and passed on our request, finding it had no jurisdiction over the matter. So the first thing the Senate needs to do is give the Ethics Committee clear authority to enforce the ban against secret holds.

Second, while referring senators who employ secret holds against nominees to the Ethics Committee is a good first step, HLOGA did not limit the secret hold restriction to just executive branch nominees; it applied to all Senate actions. Therefore, any senator who employs a secret hold on any matter should be referred to the Ethics Committee.

The secret hold is an arcane and undemocratic procedure and the American people know it, which is why the Senate banned the practice in the first place. The sooner senators recognize that voters cannot be placated with empty promises of change the sooner they will understand why the Senate is held in such low esteem. As outgoing House Appropriations Chair Rep. David Obey (D-WI) so aptly said in his farewell statement, "there has to be more to life than explaining the ridiculous, accountability destroying rules of the Senate to confused, angry, and frustrated constituents." It is long past time for the Senate to take responsibility for its part in contributing to American cynicism about the government. Ending the use of secret holds is a good place to start.

Melanie Sloan is CREW's executive director

CREW today received a response from the Senate Ethics Committee dismissing our December complaint asking for an investigation into senators’ failure to abide by their own ban on "secret holds." The ban was part of the Senate’s 2007 Honest Leadership and Open Government Act.

CREW’s December request explained that even though the Senate had banned the practice of using these holds to delay or derail legislation and nominations, secret holds continue to be employed. With no concrete method of enforcement, no Senator appears to have taken the ban seriously – and only TWO bills in a two-year period had been flagged with the "notice of intent to object" the ban requires.

The Senate Ethics Committee’s letter to CREW said, remarkably, that enforcing official Senate rules is out of the committee’s jurisdiction, and any investigation into violations of the ban "could effectively turn the Committee into a policing agency for alleged departures of Senate parliamentary procedure."

Unbelievable.

CREW’s executive director Melanie Sloan said:

If the ethics committee can’t enforce a ban on secret holds enacted by the Senate just a couple of years ago, then the ban was clearly nothing more than a sham from the get go. The Senate tried to pawn off this ban to an American public fed up with congressional inaction and secrecy as real change. Now we learn the truth: the ban – like so much that comes out of senators’ mouths -- is meaningless. Was the ban part of "honest leadership" or "open government"? Seems like a tossup.

Click here to read the Senate Ethics Committee’s response to CREW.

Today, CREW filed complaints with the Senate Ethics Committee and the House Office of Congressional Ethics, alleging members of Congress who reside or have resided at the infamous C Street House have violated congressional gift rules by paying below market rent.

From press accounts, CREW has found that the following members of Congress have lived or currently live at the house:

• Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS)
• Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
• Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)
• Sen. John Ensign (R-NV)
• Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA)
• Rep. Jerry Moran (R-KS)
• Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC)
• Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI)
• Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN)

The C Street House is a luxurious Capitol Hill residence for members of Congress that is run by C Street Center, Inc. – an entity with ties to the shadowy Fellowship Foundation. Press accounts have claimed that members of Congress who live the house pay only $950 in rent – well below market value for that area. Previous studies found that comparable rental rates for the Capitol Hill area range from $1,700 to over $4,000 a month.

CREW’s complaint explains that by accepting below market rent, members of Congress are violating clear-cut congressional rules that prohibit accepting lodging as a gift and bar members from accepting a gift given because of their official positions. Members may accept gifts given out of personal friendship, but that exception hardly applies here.

Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, said today:

At a time when so many Americans are losing their housing it is surprising to discover that some members of Congress are lucky enough to have a landlord that charges below market rent for fairly luxurious accommodations – and offers housekeeping and meal service to boot. Rarely does someone – particularly a member of Congress – receive something for nothing, so you can’t help but wonder exactly what these members may be doing in return for all of this largess. Of course, this is the reason the gift ban was enacted in the first place. This situation cries out for an immediate ethics inquiry.

Click here to read CREW's complaint to the Office of Congressional Ethics.
Click here to read CREW's complaint to the Senate Ethics Committee.
Click here to read the complaints' accompanying exhibits.

Inside the Beltway, the term "ethics enforcement" has almost become an oxymoron over the past decade. For this reason, it is good news to hear that FBI agents have begun interviewing people connected to the scandal surrounding Sen. John Ensign (R-NV).

So begins this blog post by CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan. In her remarks at Huffington Post, Ms. Sloan explains why Sen. Ensign's conduct needs to be fully investigated.

Click here to read the entire post -- and feel free to leave a comment if the spirit moves you.

The new year's eve fireworks began hours early -- when CNN's Rick Sanchez conducted a live interview with Senator John Ensign (R-NV) on the afternoon of Dec. 31. Not surprisingly, the senator did his best to dodge Sanchez's questions about Ensign's ethics controversy.

(Click here to listen to CREW's Melanie Sloan summarize on ABC's "Nightline" the serious ethical concerns surrounding Sen. Ensign.)

Sen. Ensign was clearly annoyed at having to field such questions on CNN, but kudos to Sanchez for holding his ground. At one point, Sanchez told the Sen. Ensign that it's "fair for a journalist to ask a standing senator" to respond to these questions.

Sen. Ensign repeatedly ducked Sanchez's questions by stating, "I commented all I was going to comment on that."

Sanchez respectfully pushed back:

"You're saying you've answered all these questions. I'm not sure that's true, senator."

It's nice to see that some corners of the news media are unwilling to sit on their hands and let the Ensign scandal float by them.

Click here to view a lengthy clip of the CNN-Ensign interview.

The reviews are starting to roll in, but they're not about a movie. These reviews concern the robocall that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) recorded to seek support for his proposal to, in his own words, "send the (health care reform) bill back to the Senate Finance Committee ..."

This front-page article in today's Politico shares reactions of two senators whose states were among the four reportedly deluged with McCain's robocall:

"I don’t think it's very collegial," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), one of the targets.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said he found it "curious as to why someone would think that would be worth doing."

Whether the McCain robocall was collegial is a matter we'll happily leave up to others to debate. A few days ago, CREW filed a complaint against McCain's robocall for a different reason. In our complaint to the Senate ethics committee, we contend that the way Sen. McCain's robocall was funded violates Senate Rule 38.

Click here and then scroll down to read the robocall's script.

In this post late Friday on The Hill's Congress Blog, CREW executive director Melanie Sloan explains our decision last week to request an investigation by the Senate ethics committee of the continued use of secret holds.

Here is an excerpt:

When they passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA) two years ago, senators claimed that the new law would change the way business is conducted in Washington. Unfortunately, the so-called ban on “secret holds” has turned out to be as phony as the Colorado balloon boy story.

That’s why Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has asked the Senate Select Committee on Ethics to investigate why senators aren’t abiding by Section 512 in HLOGA.

... We’re not opposed to holds; we are opposed to secret holds. The senator who placed a hold on the veterans health care bill should have identified himself publicly from the very beginning. The same can be said of the senator who placed a hold on the confirmation hearings for Hilda Solis as President Obama’s labor secretary.

Such violations are likely to continue unless the ethics committee steps up to the plate and starts enforcing the ban on secret holds.

For more details, here is a copy of the letter we sent to the Senate ethics committee requesting the investigation.

According to TPMMuckraker, a Nevada political columnist is reporting that the Senate ethics committee has begun issuing subpoenas for documents related to the scandal surrounding Sen. John Ensign.

For an overview of the serious ethical concerns involving Sen. Ensign, as well as CREW's role in pressing for a thorough investigation, click here.

CREW sent a letter to the Senate ethics committee today, demanding an investigation into senators’ continued use of “secret holds” despite a ban on the practice in a 2007 ethics reform bill.

Senators use holds to stop or stall legislation and nomination hearings. Secret holds, which allow a senator to issue a hold anonymously, were supposedly banned by the 2007 Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, or HLOGA. But without any concrete enforcement mechanism – the practice has continued.

CREW conducted a day-by-day search of the Senate Calendar of Business since HLOGA was passed and found just two bills have had any notice of official intent to place a hold, while many more bills and nominations had apparently been held anonymously, including:

A senator’s failure to abide by official senate rules – especially to a two-year-old ethics overhaul – is most certainly “misconduct that reflects upon the Senate.” And it reflects poorly.

Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, said it best:

Senators claimed HLOGA would change the way business is conducted in Washington, but the so-called ban on secret holds was nothing more than an empty promise. An empty promise by politicians... not much change in that, more like same-old, same-old. If the ban is really as meaningless as it seems, the ethics committee should admit it and the Senate should repeal it. As shocking a notion as it may be, Americans have a right to expect senators -- just like regular folks -- will follow the rules.

Click here (PDF) to read CREW’s letter to the Senate ethics committee.

At NPR’s Political Junkie blog, Ken Rudin agrees with CREW’s assessment that Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) shouldn’t have been "pleased" with the letter he received from the Senate Ethics Committee.

In its letter, the ethics committee wrote, "You should have known that you were providing incorrect, inconsistent, misleading, or incomplete information to the public, the Senate, and those conducting legitimate inquiries into your appointment to the Senate." NPR’s Rudin sarcastically asks:

This is what they call good news these days?

Some observers speculated that the ethics committee couldn’t have taken stronger action against Sen. Burris unless it believed his actions were going to earn him an indictment. But NPR correspondent Peter Overby throws cold water on that viewpoint. Overby writes:

The committee sometimes drops the hammer hardest on senators who've never been indicted, let alone convicted. For instance, in 1995 it recommended expulsion for Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.), accused of sexually harrassing women on his staff and cutting a backroom deal to get his wife a job. He was never indicted (but never expelled either; he resigned first).

CREW’s Melanie Sloan offered this statement on the ethics committee’s letter admonishing Burris.