House passed up chance to scuttle Calvert move

Lawmakers critical of Rep. Ken Calvert’s (R-Calif.) appointment to the House Appropriations panel bypassed a procedural opportunity last week that would have denied him the seat.

Top House Republicans, particularly Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio), have faced unusually harsh criticism from within their own party and from Democrats for replacing Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) with Calvert.

{mosads}Doolittle is under FBI investigation for his ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, while Calvert is facing ethics scrutiny for land deals and legislative projects in his district. The FBI pulled Calvert’s 2000-05 financial disclosure reports last year after initial stories questioning the land deals appeared in the local press.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has taken Republicans to task, issuing a flurry of press releases and statements condemning Calvert’s appointment and the subsequent assignment of Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) to fill Calvert’s ranking GOP spot on the space and aeronautics subcommittee. Feeney is also under FBI investigation for his ties to Abramoff.

The editor of www.Redstate.com, a right-wing blog, has launched a war against the House GOP leadership over Calvert’s assignment. And after the GOP Steering Committee picked Calvert for the post, at least three GOP members spoke out in a private conference meeting against Calvert’s appointment, including Reps. Ray Lahood (Ill.), Ginny Brown-Waite (Fla.) and Dave Camp (Mich.), one GOP lawmaker present said.

During the vote, several Republican shouts of “no” prompted the GOP to call for a show of hands, which indicated a lopsided vote in favor of Calvert’s appointment, according to several GOP sources present. There was an objection to confirming the appointment by a show of hands, and at least one member called for a secret-ballot vote. But that move would have required a unanimous agreement, and at least one member objected. As a result, the effort failed, the sources said.

This week, some GOP members were still lamenting the decision.

“It’s like we didn’t learn anything from last year,” one GOP lawmaker said, referring to the November elections and the loss of the party’s majority control.

But Democrats as well as critical Republicans had the power to take matters into their own hands to prevent the assignment.

All committee assignments must go to the House floor for approval after the Republicans conference or the Democratic Caucus selects them. Party leaders usually bring the committee assignments to the floor through a unanimous consent agreement, which fails if even one member opposes it and calls for a recorded vote.

Under such a scenario, party leaders likely would pull the resolution to avoid forcing members to vote on a controversial committee assignment — a vote that could be used against them in campaigns.

Earlier this year, Republicans threatened to oppose a unanimous consent agreement on the assignment of Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) to the Homeland Security panel. The FBI has been investigating Jefferson for more than two years on allegations that he improperly accepted $100,000, $90,000 of which was found in his freezer in an FBI raid.

For now, that GOP threat, issued by Minority Whip Roy Blunt  (R-Mo.) in March, has effectively prevented Jefferson from assuming the seat on Homeland Security. Democrats have yet to bring the assignment to the floor for approval.

On the surface, it would seem that Democrats had every reason to seize the moment last week and treat the Republicans to a dose of their own medicine. But no one on either side of the aisle spoke out to oppose the procedural vote on the Calvert assignment, and the resolution sailed through without opposition.

Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said in a brief interview that he didn’t oppose Calvert because “that’s not my way of doing business” and because he didn’t think the issues surrounding Calvert and Jefferson “should be coupled together.”

When asked why he didn’t oppose Calvert’s appointment, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) said only that the question was above his “pay grade.”

DCCC spokesman Doug Thornell said it is not the Democrats’ responsibility to oppose GOP committee assignments, and he reiterated the group’s prior criticism.

“It’s the job and responsibility of John Boehner and the Republican leadership to select the members they feel best represent their values and character on these important committees,” he said. “Based on their actions, they value ethically challenged members under investigation.”

LaHood was one of those who acknowledged his concerns about the Calvert appointment last week. Charlie Keller, a spokesman for Brown-Waite, confirmed that she also spoke out at the meeting.

 “She asked several questions [in the meeting],” her spokesman said. “She felt very uncomfortable with appointing someone with an ethics cloud hanging over his head.”

Keller did not say why Brown-Waite did not oppose Calvert’s appointment when it came to the House floor by unanimous consent. A spokesman for Camp declined to comment.

One GOP lawmaker said the resolution to confirm Calvert’s committee assignment was purposely held during the dinner hour on a night of late votes, when most members on both sides of the aisle were not present.

But GOP Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (R-Fla.), who introduced the resolution that night, denied that charge.
“It was not done late at night — it was done at 7 p.m.,” he said. “Any members could have objected to it. It was well known and discussed with the other side.”

Putnam argued that Democrats were reluctant to make an issue of Calvert for fear it would resurrect the controversy over Jefferson’s assignment and make them more vulnerable to criticism.

For his part, Blunt argued that Democrats refrained from opposing Calvert’s assignment because they “know there’s a big difference between a false story in the Los Angeles Times and $90,000 in your freezer.”