Rangel stepped down as chair of the committee this March after accusations against him began to reach a fever pitch. It’s not yet known what additional penalties, if any, the Ethics Committee may levy against him.

The fundraiser breakfast at Bistro Bis in downtown DC might be the first time, reports the Sunlight Foundation’s Party Time blog, that Rangel has attempted raising funds in Washington since March, when he was forced to step down as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee on account of the ongoing ethics investigation into his congressional dealings:

Last year, he planned to attend numerous fundraisers for himself and his colleagues. Also, some longtime donors, including Pfizer, have said they are no longer contributing to him while other lawmakers have donated the money Rangel gave their campaigns to charity.

Indeed, in the lead up to the Ethics Committee’s announcement before the August recess of the charges against Rangel, a whole host of Democratic lawmakers began donating the campaign funds they had received from Rangel’s PAC to charities in order to avoid being tarred by Republicans for accepting potentially dirty money.

As a result, it will be interesting to monitor who showed up this morning to contribute, as well as what Rangel plans to do with the money. With his own district looking relatively secure now that he’s gotten past the hurdle of his primary, and other lawmakers hesitant to accept his largess, it’s not immediately clear for whom or what, exactly, Rangel is even engaged in raising funds in the first place.

The committee said Mr. Rangel not only reached out to corporate executives seeking contributions to the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College, but he also personally sought donations from registered lobbyists whose corporations had business before Congress. In some cases, Mr. Rangel asked for contributions of as much as $30 million from businesses with issues before the Ways and Means Committee, of which he was the chairman until March. [...]

In one of the more important allegations against Mr. Rangel, the committee charged him with ethics violations for his solicitation of Eugene Isenberg, the chief executive of Nabors Industries, an oil company that was seeking a tax break from the Ways and Means Committee when he pledged $1 million to the Rangel Center.

Mr. Rangel met with Mr. Isenberg and his lobbyist to discuss the tax break, which the congressman previously opposed, in February 2007 — the day it was being considered by the Ways and Means Committee.

The tax break ultimately passed, with Mr. Rangel’s vote, saving Nabors more than half a billion dollars. Eleven days after the meeting, City College cashed a $100,000 check from Mr. Isenberg.

At last count only four Democrats, none of whom represent leadership, have called for Rangel to resign — indicating that the flood of calls probably won’t materialize. House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), facing challenges from Republicans that she’s not actually made progress in cleaning up Washington’s shady political culture, argued instead that the ethics committee’s handling of Rangel’s case is proof that Democrats had delivered on her famous promise in 2006 to “drain the swamp” in Washington.

The Hill reports:

Under the draft, tax credits would be awarded for improvements in energy efficiency, integrating renewable electricity onto the electric grid, and creating technologies and equipment that capture biogas to produce energy and other “post-consumer waste-to-energy” facilities.

The draft’s centerpiece extends through 2014 the Section 48C manufacturing tax credit for investing in renewable energy. The tax credit was created in the 2009 stimulus bill and has been touted by President Obama as being instrumental in helping companies become energy efficient. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates the extension will cost approximately $6.9 billion.

For example, on Dec. 10, one of the lawmakers under investigation, Representative Joseph Crowley, a New York Democrat who sits on the Ways and Means Committee, left the Capitol during the House debate to attend a fund-raising event for him hosted by a lobbyist at her nearby Capitol Hill town house that featured financial firms, along with other donors. After collecting thousands of dollars in checks, Mr. Crowley returned to the floor of the House just in time to vote against a series of amendments that would have imposed tougher restrictions on Wall Street.

That same day, Representative Tom Price, a Georgia Republican on the Financial Services Committee, scheduled what he called a “Financial Services Luncheon” at the Capitol Hill Club, as part of a fund-raising push that netted him nearly $23,000 in contributions from the industry in a two-month period around the vote.

The Office of Congressional Ethics is an independent office, led by a former federal prosecutor, that has been riling members on the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct with its aggressive pursuit of what it considers unethical conduct. The New York Times notes that given the two groups’ differences, it’s unlikely that the committee will punish any of the accused members even if the investigation ends up recommending action.

House Ways and Means Committee Chair Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) and Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) had introduced the bill, H.R. 5618, to extend UI through Nov. 30 and to retroactively grant benefits to those who started losing them at the beginning of June.

In the House, the bill failed with a majority — 261-155, with 277 needed to pass. House Democrats suspended certain rules to try to push the bill through on a two-thirds majority. Now, the bill isn’t dead. It goes back to the Rules Committee, then will come up for another vote.

“An intervention to delay a looming Medicare physician payment cut will provide temporary stability for seniors and their physicians,” AMA President J. James Rohack said in a statement. “[B]ut the AMA is deeply disappointed that Congress will once again fail to permanently correct the Medicare physician payment formula that Republican and Democrat members of Congress, President Obama and policy experts have said should be repealed.”

Under current law, doctors treating Medicare patients will, on average, see a 21 percent pay cut beginning June 1. Yesterday, Democrats in the House and Senate introduced an enormous jobs package that also includes funding to prevent that cut from happening. (Many doctors have said that they couldn’t afford to see Medicare patients if the reduction was to take effect.)

Under the Democrats’ plan, Medicare doctors would see “reasonable” payment updates for the remainder of 2010 and through 2011. Then, in 2012 and 2013, “rates would continue to increase if spending growth on physician services is within reasonable limits, with an extra allowance for primary and preventive care,” according to a summary of the bill. Doctors would not see pay cuts in those years.

But in 2014, the current formula that’s dictating the 21 percent cut would go back into effect — a problem of which the AMA is only too well aware.

“Lawmakers must realize that the underlying policy problem will return larger than ever in 2014,” Rohack warned. “The pending Medicare proposal treats the symptoms – it’s not a cure for the disease.”

Of course, 2014 is several elections away. A number of these lawmakers may not even be around to have to deal with it.

Continuing that theme, Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), senior Republican on the powerful Ways and Means Committee, told reporters today that GOP leaders have no interest in getting health coverage for everyone, Merrill Goozner reports.

His idea of reform? Allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines; limiting medical malpractice awards (“enough to pay for reform,” he said); creating high-deductible, high-co-pay plans for the uninsured (“we’re not trying to get to universal coverage”); and setting up special pools to make insurance more affordable for small business. If that sounds familiar, it should because it is essentially the same plan that was offered by Sen. John McCain and rejected by voters just 14 months ago.

Surprising? Not in a town where tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans are also celebrated as a victory for the middle class.

In a letter yesterday to GAO, Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), Pete Stark (D-Calif.) and John Lewis (D-Ga.) voiced concerns that the companies are “artificially raising prices for certain pharmaceutical products in expectation of new reforms that could otherwise reduce prescription drug prices or price growth by encouraging patients and the government to be more efficient purchasers.”

Any price gouging is unacceptable, but anticipatory price gouging is especially offensive. We request that the GAO prepare on an expedited basis a report that analyzes recent trends in prescription drug pricing. In addition, we request that you prepare a proposal to ensure ongoing monitoring of pharmaceutical manufacturer pricing practices, and periodically report to the Congress on your findings.

Not that the pharmaceutical industry is taking the Times’ report sitting down. In a statement released Monday, Ken Johnson, senior vice president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said the price increases represent “the natural result of market forces.”

At a House panel hearing today, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who heads the Ways & Means Oversight Subcommittee, revealed the results of the panel’s investigation into the top recipients of federal help under the Wall Street bailout.

The results: 13 of the top 23 recipient companies owe back-taxes totaling more than $220 million. Two of the companies owe more than $100 million each. “How can this be?” Lewis asks in a statement. “If we looked at all 470 recipients, how much would they owe?”

Testifying before the panel was the bailout’s chief overseer, Neil Barofsky, who told lawmakers that the companies, as a condition of receiving TARP funds, must affirm that their tax payments are current, according to the release.

Lewis was quick to point out that federal law prevents the panel from revealing which companies are delinquent. He also made it clear that the Treasury Department, though asked to testify before the panel, declined its invitation.

And here we thought only the Bush administration did that.