Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., waves to supporters during a Democratic election party at the Aria on Tuesday. Her husband, Dr. Larry Lehrner, applauds at left.
By Anjeanette Damon (contact) 
, Karoun Demirjian (contact)
Published Monday, July 9, 2012 | 2:40 p.m.
Updated Monday, July 9, 2012 | 4:46 p.m.
The U.S. House Ethics Committee has voted unanimously to form an investigative subcommittee to explore whether U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley used her official position to advocate for policy that benefited her family’s financial situation.
“The committee has determined to take this action based upon a discretionary review of the allegations, as well as evidence obtained pursuant to (House rules),” according to a press release issued today. “The committee notes that the mere fact of establishing an investigative subcommittee does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred.”
The subcommittee will determine whether Berkley violated the House’s Code of Official Conduct “with respect to alleged communications and activities with or on behalf of entities in which Representative Berkley’s husband had a financial interest.”
In 2008, Berkley joined with the rest of the Nevada delegation to lobby to keep the kidney transplant center open at University Medical Center.
Her husband, Dr. Larry Lehrner, is a kidney doctor whose medical firm had a contract to provide kidney care at UMC. Closing the transplant center would have meant Southern Nevadans would have to travel out of state to receive a transplant.
Berkley also wrote a letter to the chairman of the House subcommittee with jurisdiction over Medicare, petitioning him not to lower Medicare reimbursement rates for dialysis.
Berkley has said that she was motivated by protecting patient care in Las Vegas and not by any personal financial motives. She also worked to protect reimbursement rates for many different kinds of care, not just dialysis treatments, according to her campaign.
In a brief interview following the committee's decision, Berkley animatedly defended her work lobbying for kidney care.
“There was no way I was going to sit back and allow a kidney transplant program, the only one in the entire state, to be closed," Berkley said. "Two hundred people were waiting in line for a kidney transplant when they were going to close this ... I am absolutely convinced that when this investigation is finished there’s only one decision that the committee can possibly reach and that was my only concern was for the health and well-being of the people I represent.”
Berkley said she is proud of her record on health care, noting she has fought for legislation on many different diseases, not just kidney disease.
“I introduced 114 pieces of health legislation, everything from osteoporosis to cancer," she said. "Eight of the 114 pieces of legislation that I introduced were kidney related. Now kidney disease is an epidemic in this country, and it deserved eight pieces of legislation. I’m proud of that record.”
Berkley said she has had no conversations with members of the ethics committee in the lead up to their decision. But she has promised to keep confidential her interactions with the committee going forward.
The ethics probe has dogged her tight Senate race against Republican Dean Heller. The decision by the committee to move forward with a full investigation means her campaign will be forced to contend with the issue through the fall.
Immediately following the decision, Berkley's campaign manager Jessica Mackler said Berkley is "pleased" the committee will conduct a full investigation into the facts of the case.
"We are confident that ultimately it will be clear that Congresswoman Berkley’s one and only concern was for the health and well being of Nevada’s patients," Mackler said. "That’s why she joined then Republican Congressman Dean Heller to prevent Nevada’s only kidney transplant program from being shut down by Washington bureaucrats. With more than 200 Nevada patients desperately waiting for a lifesaving kidney transplant, it would have been irresponsible of her not to work with the state’s entire congressional delegation to protect the program.”
Berkley said she wasn't concerned about the timing of the announcement.
“What I do know is once this is complete, there’s not going to be a question in anybody’s mind that my only concern was for the health and well-being of the people I represent,” she said.
But when asked whether she wanted the committee to actually issue its decision prior to the election, Berkley sounded far less confident.
“I don’t know,” she said. “I don’t know. I don’t know what’s going to happen.”
Heller’s campaign declined to comment on the Ethics Committee’s announcement Monday afternoon, but the Senate Republicans' campaign arm decided to join the fray.
“It speaks volumes that even Shelley Berkley’s Democrat colleagues unanimously voted to move forward investigating Berkley’s use of her office to enrich her and her husband," National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) Executive Director Rob Jesmer said in a written statement. "Since Berkley entered the political arena we’ve seen a long pattern of ethical questions surrounding her conduct. Nevadans deserve someone in the Senate who they can trust to work on their behalf and not someone — like Ms. Berkley — who puts her own financial and political interests first.
The Office of Congressional Ethics had recommended the Ethics committee, which is made up of five Republicans and five Democrats, review Berkley’s case in February. The Committee then set itself a deadline of July 9 back in late March to alert the public on how it planned to proceed. The committee elected not to release any documents Monday, including a summary of the OCE’s report.
Rep. K. Michael Conaway, a Republican from Texas, will chair the subcommittee investigating Berkley, and Rep. Donna Edwards, a Democrat from Maryland, will serve as ranking member.
The committee has no deadline to complete its investigation, which itself may indicate how quickly it plans to proceed. Whether she wins or loses her Senate race come November, Berkley’s term in the House is done at the end of the calendar year. After that, the Ethics committee no longer has jurisdiction over her case anyway.
This is the first time in three years the House Ethics Committee has moved a case recommended by the OCE to an investigative subcommittee. They last established one in the case of Rep. Maxine Waters, who allegedly advocated for a bank in which her husband has significant financial interest.
Shocker!!
Can we just ask the Riddler to step down??
Interesting.
And before any of our partisan commentators react with partisan blinders by claiming partisan bias on behalf of the committee, note that the vote was unanimous. The House Ethics Committee is half D, half R. And some of the D's appear to be quite liberal.
ut oh........
Making sure her husband kept getting paid at a higher rate was only motivated by her concern for the patients? Is that really the only excuse she could come up with?
No worry....she will be A-OK even if they punish her one day.
Democrats have a super low bar in regards to standards and decency. They DON'T CARE.
So what she made sure money flowed into hubby's pockets.
Heck......why become a US Senator if you can't help yourself to some money.
Lobbying not to lower reimbursement rates is a dead giveaway.
If Shelley was truly intent on keeping health care from being sent out of state, then leave her be. Nevada has enough problems with healthcare as it is.
I suppose Mr. Heller, who was a Congressman at the time and Mr. Jon Porter were so dumb that they were totally unaware of Dr. Lehrner's field of medicine. They ALL signed off on this. Neither one of these two "gentlemen" will step up and say that they agreed about the dialysis at UMC and how much it was needed. I don't see any other kidney specialists saying that their group would do this. As someone with Stage 3 Kidney disease, I would hope to have a place to go to should I need it. Dr. Lehrner is not on my plan, therefore he cannot "profit" from my condition. Frankly, it would be nice to have a civil discourse without using terms such as I have seen here calling other subscribers names.
This is just wrong. This is politically motivated.
what MommySandy1 says...
Mommy is ALWAYS right, and this is NO exception.
Will we hear from APPOINTED/ANNOINTED Senator Heller on HIS CULPABILITY???
HIGHLY unlikely.
As for the TeaNut comment from rock...
You, sir...were John Ensign's #1 SUPPORTER, right next to Shermy;
you have a lotta noive.
Not to mention, by comparison to your hero, THIS...THIS is like jaywalking.
Of course, having said that...
Heller wins in a walk.
Fair?
Hardly.
Remember Rock's other buddy, Gym Gibbons?
He was being investigated for SEXUAL ASSAULT, BRIBERY, PLAGIARISM, and UNDECLARED DONATIONS, at the freaking TIME HE GOT ELECTED!
My point...
Don't go gettin' all 'holier-than-thou, rockman.
@bobn:
You do know that the House Ethics Committee is made up of an equal number of Ds and Rs? That the vote to investigate was unanimous? And that this story first broke in that Republican rag called the New York Times? It is hard to see how this can be called politically motivated in any way, shape, or form.
Oy veh - such mishegas! What's a baleboste to do when her shemdrik needs work? Looks she's going to plotz all over the place in the statement.
Regardless of how she tries to spin it, it's just plain wrong. None of us here can probably swing government money to benefit a family member. How can Ms Berkley think it's anything but a conflict of interest. She should have excused herself from the issue on day one.
Now the sad part is, she is not alone, she's just the one who at this moment who got caught with her hand in the cookie jar. It is so shameful to be a citizen in this country and to be so selfishly abused by the people we put into office to serve us and our nation.
She did it because she doesn't get it. These people lack the ability to simply do the right thing. Instead they "represent" special interests who sponsored them. Berkley screwed up since this time it involved her personally. Apparently selling your vote is OK unless it involves your own interests.
The Berkley Case is more evidence Capitalism has entered the Cancer stage.
She (I read the crew report on this) appears to have made a serious mistake. I would be willing to have her abstain from any further votes that affect the family business and make a no BS apology.
That would be enough in my book seeing as her votes were the same as the other Nevada congressional delegation.
Still waiting for Dean Heller and Jon Porter to reply what their involvement was in agreeing to this "bill". Contacting Mr. Heller's office gave me no answer to this question. Apparently, they thought it was good for Nevadans!
People should let the process work. The Committee is comprised of both Democrats and Republicans who will look at the facts surrounding the Congresswoman's alleged improper behavior. The Special Committee on ethics has rarely ever been deadlocked along partisan lines. If Mrs. Berkley is determined to have violated ethical standard of the House of Representatives, she will suffer whatever judgment the House passes on her. The worst that likely happens is she is held in disrepute and sanctioned. But until then, she should be treated with the great dignity all of our elected officials deserves. After all, that exalted body of the Senate hasn't passed a comprehensive budget bill in THREE YEARS...not a single complete budget resolution has been brought to the Senate floor for debate or consideration in 38 months. Not one. And Nevada's senior senator has 100% control and responsibility for that travesty.
Compared to Harry, who has for three solid years behaved in a manner unbecoming of a U.S. Senator, Ms. Berkley looks like a princess pure as the driven snow. So let's just see what the House Committee of her peers has to say about all her activities before we pass judgment.