By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
c.2010 New York Times News Service
WASHINGTON – The House ethics committee Thursday laid out 13 charges of ethical violations committed by Rep. Charles B. Rangel, D-N.Y., accusing him of a pattern of “indifference and disregard” for the law and the rules of the House.
The unveiling of the charges sets the stage for a rare public trial by the committee this fall, a potential embarrassment for the Democratic leadership during the election season. It came even as Rangel’s lawyers suggested they were trying to reach a settlement to avoid such a fate.
Ethics committee members appeared somber Thursday, expressing fondness for Rangel even as they issued the stinging report, which states that Rangel’s “actions reflected poorly on the institution of the House and, thereby, brought discredit to the House.”
Rangel, 80, did not appear at the meeting Thursday but issued a written response denying “each and every allegation” and criticizing the committee’s report as “deeply flawed in its factual premises and legal theories.”
In the 40-page report, the committee said it substantiated the major charges that have been hanging over Rangel for two years: that he improperly used his office to solicit donations for a school to be named in his honor; failed to pay taxes on and report rental income from his Dominican villa, filed incomplete financial disclosure forms and improperly accepted from a Manhattan developer rent-stabilized apartments, one of which he used as a campaign office.
But while those alleged infractions had been widely reported, the committee unearthed new details about Rangel’s conduct. The committee said Rangel not only reached out to corporate executives seeking contributions to the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service but also personally sought donations from registered lobbyists whose corporations had business before Congress. In some cases, Rangel asked for contributions of as much as $30 million from businesses with issues before the Ways and Means Committee.
“Reasonable persons could construe contributions to the Rangel Center by persons with interests before the Ways and Means Committee as influencing the performance of Respondent’s governmental duties,” the report stated, saying the situation violated the congressional Code of Ethics.
In addition, Rangel, when he secured a rent-stabilized apartment for his campaign operation in Harlem, signed an application saying that the apartment would be the primary residence for his son, Steven Rangel, and not used for business purposes, the report said. Steven Rangel never lived in the apartment, and the committee said the developer, the Olnick Organization, included Rangel on a “special handling list,” apparently for VIPs, and did not take action against him even as it cracked down on other tenants whose apartments were not being used as primary residences.
The report suggested that, after 20 terms in Congress, Rangel had come to rely on his government-paid staff for activities unrelated to his congressional work.
Rangel and his lawyers will be given several weeks to review the evidence against him, meaning that a trial is unlikely to begin until September, the heart of the congressional campaign season.
At the trial, a subcommittee of the ethics committee, made up of four Democrats and four Republicans, would serve essentially as a jury and seek to determine whether there is “clear and convincing evidence” of Rangel’s wrongdoing.
Rangel would be represented by lawyers at the proceedings and could persuade the committee members to drop some or all of the charges. But if he did not, the committee could penalize or recommend that the House discipline Rangel.
Rangel’s lawyers signaled their defense Thursday, arguing in a statement that the congressman did not seek to gain personally from any of the actions the committee examined.
“The congressman did not abuse his official position or enrich himself financially,” the statement asserted. “He did not target for solicitation foundations, corporations or individuals with business before the Ways and Means Committee, nor did he offer or provide preferential treatment or favors to potential contributors. “
In one of the more important allegations against 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.
Rangel met with Isenberg and his lobbyist to discuss the tax break, which the congressman had previously opposed, in February 2007 – the day it was being considered by Ways and Means Committee, which Rangel led.
The tax break ultimately passed, with Rangel’s vote, saving Nabors more than half a billion dollars. Eleven days after the meeting, City College cashed a $100,000 check from Isenberg.
The committee charged that the interactions violated ethics rules because they could be construed as influencing the congressman’s vote. Rangel and Isenberg have both said that the contribution was unrelated to tax issue, and Rangel’s written response yesterday asserted that he never did political favors for donors, or anyone else.
After the release of the detailed charges Thursday, Democrats girded themselves for a process that could be ugly and drawn-out. In a news conference, the White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the administration would not prejudge the outcome.
“There’s a – you know, a bipartisan panel that’s looking into this and into these serious charges. We think that is important to do,” he said.
The fact that the case has gotten this far is a remarkable event for the secretive ethics committee. The last time the House held a public trial of a member was in 2002, after Rep. James A. Traficant, D-Ohio, had been convicted criminally on corruption charges. Traficant was expelled from Congress and served a prison term.
Committee members seemed especially concerned about how their handling of Rangel’s case would affect public opinion.
“Credibility is exactly what is at stake here – the very credibility of the House of Representatives itself before the American people,” said an ethics committee member, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas.
When he arrived on Capitol Hill hours before the hearing, Rangel’s trademark bravado had been replaced by battle-weariness.
“Sixty years ago I survived a Chinese attack in North Korea, and as a result I wrote a book saying that I hadn’t had a bad day since,” he said. “Today, I have to reassess that statement.”
In Washington, where Rangel was one of the most powerful members of Congress until he had to relinquish his chairman’s position when the ethics committee admonished him for accepting a corporate-sponsored trip, many on Capitol Hill were saddened to see a figure of his stature criticized so harshly by the committee.
With Democrats worried that they might lose control of the House during elections this fall, many party officials had urged Rangel to spare them the public ordeal of a trial, and a handful of Democratic members have called for his resignation.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California declined to speak out in support of Rangel, but she said that the committee’s handling of the Rangel case was proof that Democrats had delivered on her promise to “drain the swamp” of Washington’s dodgy political culture.
Rangel faces a Sept. 14 primary against four little-known challengers and, because the district is so heavily Democratic, the party nominee is a heavy favorite to prevail in the general election.