by Frank James
House Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Charlie Rangel's sparring matchwith reporters today who questioned him about the propriety of hisinvolvement in fundraising for a City College of New York center bearing his name was worth watching.
Rangel clearly was angry about a story he believes isn't a story.In a nutshell, his position is that the letters his office sent outon congressional stationery were merely form letters. Moreimportantly, they didn't solicit any money, they merely tried tohelpful in encouraging meetings between the foundations and theCCNY. Furthermore, the Charles B. Rangel Public Service Center wasnamed by the school's board, not himself.
Beyond that, he emphasized, these were non-profit foundations hewas trying to get together with college officials, not corporationswith business before his Ways and Means Committee.
A rankled Rangel tried to turn the tables on Washington Postreporter Christopher Lee, usually never a good media strategy sincea rank-and-file reporter is no match for one of the nation's mostpowerful men who looked like he was bullying the reporter.
But Rangel clearly felt he was more sinned against than sinning.Here's a snippet of a transcript provided by the Washington Post :
First of all, I normally advise people, as I have been advised, notto respond to these allegations that I abused my congressionaldiscretion in writing on behalf of a school institution named afterme because it would blow over; or, as more often I've advisedmembers, that remember you don't have as much ink as the printersdo.
Rangel then announced he was making an exception, however:
So one of the things that I would use, hoping that it might catchon, is that I'm going to see how much damn ink The Washington Posthas.
So to that extent they -- another potential headline is, "RangelInsists That the Ethics Committee Investigate the UnfoundedCharges," because, first of all, nobody that can read is going tobring any charges against me, including The Washington Post, which,of course, I encourage them to do it, because then they have tofollow their own foundless story, and at least that gets somecoverage on this in The Washington Post.
And I would want to make certain that other members are in theposition to know what they can or cannot do.
As to the allegations, I challenge The Washington Post -- and ifyou can find some word a little stronger than that -- to show oneline in any of the letters that I have sent out on behalf of theCity College institution, which their board of directors decided toname after me, where there's a solicitation for funds.
RANGEL: In all of the letters that were sent to not-for-profitfoundations, rather than as they say to people who may havebusiness before my committee, I encourage them to meet with CityCollege to learn more about the program.
In the three areas that you can say is not listed that I waswriting to a foundation, one of them was writing to DavidRockefeller, and in my mind -- I was really writing to theRockefeller foundation, but if you want to say David Rockefellerhas business before my committee -- well, he wakes in the morning,I assume, just breathing he has business before my committee. Butit was a Dear David letter. And I've known the guy, and his brotherbetter when he was governor of New York.
The other one was Jack (sic) Greenberg, who while he was theexecutive director and (inaudible) the CEO of AIG -- that's theAmerican Insurance Group -- the only discussions I've ever had withhim was our shared experience in Korea, where we both earned theBronze Star. And in talking and writing the letter to him, again,he was known, as he is in the philanthropic world, as the CEO ofStarr Foundation, which is one of the largest in the country.
The third exception is Don Trump, who on that letter, which was oneof the letters that I know is in the possession of The WashingtonPost, is a handwritten note that I'm sending him the material as herequested. And, of course, he has no issue before the committee.
RANGEL: I might add that one of the people that have been out thereencouraging contributions, private and public, has been thelongtime district attorney of New York County, in terms of this.
All of my public life, I have felt that there has been such a gapbetween the ability to get an education and success in America. AndI've spent a lot of time in the Ways and Means Committee trying toencourage the private sector to make more of a contribution interms of working with the education resources we have in thiscountry, because I truly believe -- unlike some people, CondoleezzaRice and I believe that lack of education is a threat to ournational security.
And I'm just so proud of the almost monthly meetings I have withthe Business Roundtable, not just in talking about trade, butencouraging and asking them to fulfill a bigger obligation to theirlocal and public and private institutions of learning.
As I wrote earlier, Rangel is one of the best in Congress when itcomes to rhetorical combat so a strong and effective defense wasexpected.
Rangel may be right that nothing will come of an ethicsinvestigation, if one is held at all.
And after listening to Rangel, the whole situation seems far fromblack and white. It shows how complicated ethics can be.
Yes, there is an appearance issue. When the school named the centerfor him, it would have been exceedingly odd if it hadn't crossedthe minds of school officials that there could be some fund-raisingadvantages from that down the road. Rangel even suggested as muchtoday.
There's the aspect of his power. As chair of the W&M commission,even a form letter from Rangel's office gets the attention ofdonors in a position to give money.
He may not have specifically asked for money for the school in hisletters, but wasn't the purpose of the letters to get foundationpeople together with school officials so that the school officialscould solicit?
But Rangel really can't be blamed for the school naming itspublic-service center for him, even if school officials thought itwould help fundraising. Congress doesn't have a rule thatuniversities can't name a building or center for a sittingcongressman.
And as a congressman who represents Harlem, doesn't Rangel have anobligation to help institutions in his congressional district, eventhose named after him? Doesn't sending his letters to thephilanthropies arguably fall into that category?
Rangel said one of the most important things an ethicsinvestigation could do is provide clarity on where the line is inmatters like this. That would be a welcome outcome.
