News

Rangel’s friendships face big tests

by Bob Cusack and Susan Crabtree - 12/19/08 3:09 PM ET

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) has survived various ethics controversies this year, partly because of his cordial relationships with key lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

Over the next several weeks, those relationships may be tested and could play a major factor in whether Rangel remains chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

{mosads}The House ethics committee is expected soon to release some initial findings of its investigation of Rangel, who this year has had to fend off accusations on multiple fronts related to his rent-controlled apartments in New York, underreported rental income from property in the Dominican Republic and a tax exemption he helped preserve.

The findings will likely be open to interpretation, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — and perhaps President-elect Obama — will have to publicly say whether Rangel should stay on as chairman.

While deferring to Pelosi on high-profile healthcare and trade policies in the 110th Congress, Rangel has made it clear that the Ways and Means gavel will have to be pried from his clenched hand.

A close associate of Rangel said, “So long as Rangel believes he did nothing intentionally wrong or unethical — and he doesn’t [believe he did], nor do any of his close associates — he will never, never voluntarily step aside from his chairmanship.”

Ousting Rangel would be extremely difficult, House aides and lawmakers say.

“Everybody loves Charles Rangel. He gets along with people. He’s a dealmaker,” according to a former House Democratic staffer.

Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) said, “Charlie Rangel is one of the most approachable members of Congress, has a great personality and is in love with his job.”

In his autobiography, And I Haven’t Had a Bad Day Since, Rangel repeatedly expressed fondness for his position, writing, “Day and night, wherever I go it’s been ‘Welcome Mr. Chairman.’”

Rangel notes that he waited a long time before getting to the top of the influential panel: “For decades I have hoped to gain the chairmanship before I retired from the Congress, but I had no idea how I would actually feel once I finally got the privilege, after thirty-six of service.”

Rangel has the strong support of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), which he used to chair. The CBC balked when Pelosi took action to remove Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) from the Ways and Means Committee, but Pelosi won that 2006 showdown.

Pelosi and Rangel are longtime friends, which Rangel highlights in his book, stating that the Speaker “has been able to bring the diverse segments of our caucus together and keep them united, without losing the principles of the party.”

A Rangel-Pelosi clash would divide the caucus at a time when Democrats are preparing their ambitious 2009 legislative agenda.

But Pelosi knows that she can’t let Republicans gain the upper hand on ethics after she promised that Democrats would drain the swamp of corruption in Washington. In recent weeks, however, Democratic scandals and ethics controversies have occupied the headlines, most notably the alleged corruption of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Pelosi’s relationship with Rangel makes the decision that much tougher.

“Charles Rangel is no John Dingell,” the ex-House aide said, alluding to the tensions between Pelosi and the Michigan Democrat.

Rangel’s ethics issues have dogged him for months. After The Washington Post reported that Rangel raised money for a New York City college center in Harlem bearing his name, the Ways and Means chairman lashed out at the reporter at a July press conference on Capitol Hill. And in an unusual move, Rangel asked the ethics committee to investigate him.

The attention on Rangel’s ethics eased as Congress worked to pass a $700 billion bailout bill as the presidential race heated up this fall. That changed three weeks after the election, when The New York Times published a front-page article reporting that Rangel helped preserve a valuable tax loophole for an oil and gas drilling company while the company’s chief executive was pledging $1 million to the Charles B. Rangel School of Public Service at City College of New York.

Rangel disputed aspects of the article, but it shifted the political winds as Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and editorial boards of major newspapers reiterated their calls for Rangel to step aside. Pelosi, meanwhile, issued a statement that did not defend Rangel, and instead suggested the ethics committee would be issuing findings by Jan. 3.

Since then, Pelosi and Rangel have provided different interpretations of the Speaker’s views on the chairman’s future. After Rangel boasted that Pelosi had pledged to support him as chairman, a House leadership aide said the New York lawmaker “went too far” in his characterization of a private conversation.

And after Pelosi aides said the Speaker was neutral in the race between Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Dingell for Energy and Commerce chairman, Rangel suggested to reporters that Pelosi was backing Waxman. Rangel endorsed Dingell in that contest, but Waxman won.

{mospagebreak}In a testament to his relationships on both sides of the aisle, a Boehner-led effort to censure Rangel this summer divided the House GOP, with 25 Republicans voting to table the resolution and 29 registering a “present” vote.

Boehner later threatened his conference with repercussions, telling them behind closed doors, “Anyone who votes against debating one of my resolutions, that’s fine. You just won’t have a committee assignment.”

{mosads}A subsequent measure calling for Rangel to step aside as chairman was again defeated, but only five Republicans voted no, with six voting present.

The House GOP will likely continue to bring these measures to the floor. Not one Democrat in 2008 voted with the GOP on the 2008 Rangel resolutions, but it is uncertain whether the party will be that united next year.

Many incoming freshman Democrats who ran on platforms vowing to clean up Washington could be put in a tough position in 2009 on Rangel measures.

Like Pelosi, Obama — who has not commented publicly on Rangel — has vowed to scrub Washington of corruption. Rangel and Obama are said to be friendly, but not especially close. Rangel backed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) for president; Obama did not mention Rangel in his autobiography.

Keeping a politically damaged Rangel in his post could hurt the House’s leverage with the Senate on high-profile legislation. While House Democrats publicly blamed President Bush and Senate Republicans for legislation that could not get out of the upper chamber, they privately criticized Senate Democrats for not pushing harder. Tensions between the branches will intensify next year, aides predict, with Obama having to step in and settle disputes.

Some on Capitol Hill believe if Rangel was to step aside, he should have done so before the November election.

While Rangel may be a distraction in the next Congress, Pelosi will have a comfortable majority. Analysts say there is little danger of Democrats losing control of the House any time soon.

Taking the chairmanship from Rangel would likely trigger an intra-party fight for his successor.

In early November, Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) told The Hill that he would run to replace Rangel as chairman of the committee should the New York Democrat step down. But he was quick to say that he didn’t expect Rangel to leave the post any time soon.

Asked if he thought he would be challenged for the top spot on Ways and Means, Stark said, “I don’t know — depends on the circumstances.”

Republicans would revel in a Stark chairmanship. Stark is an atheist who opposed a resolution denouncing a court decision that declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, according to the Almanac of American Politics. The GOP would also highlight his votes for higher taxes.

In 2007, Stark apologized on the House floor after he said American troops were fighting in Iraq to have their “heads blown off for the president’s amusement.” Pelosi rebuked Stark publicly for those widely criticized comments.

Stark nearly got into a physical altercation with then-Rep. Scott McInnis (R-Colo.) during a 2003 committee hearing and incorrectly claimed in 2001 that all of then-Rep. J.C. Watts’s (R-Okla.) children were born out of wedlock.

Other senior Democrats on the Ways and Means panel who would be positioned to take the gavel if Rangel were forced to relinquish it either did not respond to inquiries about the latest allegations against Rangel or responded very carefully. After Stark, the Democrats who have the most seniority on the committee are Reps. Sandy Levin (Mich.), Jim McDermott (Wash.), John Lewis (Ga.) and Richard Neal (Mass.).

Stark may face a tough time winning the chairmanship because so many Californians occupy top Democratic leadership jobs in the House, a Democratic lobbyist said. California fatigue in the caucus grew stronger after Waxman’s triumph.

“Some members of the caucus think that California has too much,” the lobbyist said. “They say: ‘Do we really need another Californian?’”

A Levin selection could help ease the pain of Michigan members still smarting from the Dingell loss.

Waxman believes Rangel should stay on.

“I don’t think you ask people to step aside until you know they’ve done something wrong,” he said, asserting that Rangel has “been a very good chairman. He is very honest and open and willing to work with Republicans.”

Waxman added, “He’s done a lot of work to help Democrats get elected and he’s very friendly and likable.”