Charlie Rangel -- 'Statement of Facts in Support of Alleged Violations' -- the Compleat Text (Part I)

I. SOLICITATION OF POTENTIAL DONORS TO THE CHARLES B. RANGEL CENTER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE AT THE CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK.

1. In 2004, Respondent became interested in creating an institution, similar to the Clinton Presidential Center, in part, to preserve Respondent's legacy.

2. Respondent discussed the idea with Gregory Williams, the president of City College of New York ("CCNY").

3. In December 2004, Respondent wrote Williams and stated:

As I informed you, during our participation in the dedication of the William J. Clinton Presidential Center several colleagues encouraged me to begin to think of the creation of an institution that would preserve the work of my public life and make it available to the public, especially to students and scholars. I am receptive to this idea if it pennits me to locate these aspects of my legacy in my home Harlem community at the City College. The creation of a Rangel Center at the City College of New York would pennit me to continue my career long interest in the promotion of education and the motivation of young people towards careers in public service.

1. In the December 2004 letter to Williams, Respondent further stated that "I will be exploring with my Congressional colleagues how best to move this idea through the appropriations process ...."

2. In early 2005, fundraising efforts for the Charles B. Rangel Center at the City College of New York ("Rangel Center") began.

3. CCNY prepared a 20-page glossy brochure for use in fundraising for the Rangel Center. That brochure includes a description of the Rangel Center Building. It described the Rangel Center Building as including a library to house and archive the Respondent's congressional papers, an archivist/librarian, and a "well-furnished office for Congressman Rangel."

7. The brochure estimated the cost ofthe archivist/librarian to be $46,550 per year.

8. In April 2005, a memo to Respondent was prepared by Jim Capel, his district director, regarding the proposal prepared by CCNY for the Rangel Center. The memo states,

"[iln the proposal, the last page is a request for $30 million or $6 million each year for the next

five years. Do we need more to advance to our Appropriations process?"

1. In May 2005, Respondent sent letters to members of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and Housing and Urban Development requesting eannarks in the amount of $6 million "to help establish a Center for Public Service at the City College of New York in my Congressional District."

2. An eannark in the amount of approximately $445,000 to the City College of New York for the planning, design, and construction of the Center for Public Service was included in the Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-115, 119 Stat. 2397 (2006). That bill became law on November 30, 2005.

3. In May 2005, Respondent sent letters regarding the Rangel Center to individuals who served as co-trustees of the Am1 S. Kheel Charitable Trust ("Kheel Trust"). Each of the letters states, "Since we are developing a relationship between the Ann Kheel Charitable Trust and the City College and City University of New York, I want to make you aware, tlu'ough this letter and the enclosed proposal, of the Rangel Center for Public Service as another promising development at the City College."

4. The May 2005 Kheel Trust letters were sent on congressional letterhead, bearing the words "Congress of the United States" and "House ofRepresentatives."

5. Respondent has been a trustee of the Atm S. Kheel Charitable Trust since its inception in February 2004. The Kheel Trust is a private foundation as defined by 26 U.S.c. § 509(a).

14. The trustee agreement for Kheel Trust contains a prohibition against self-dealing.

Respondent signed that agreement.

1. Members of Respondent's congressional staff worked with CCNY officials to obtain the grant from the Kheel Trust for the Ann S. Kheel Scholars Program.

2. Respondent knew his staff was working with CCNY officials to obtain funds fi'om the Kheel Trust.

3. Respondent was present at all meetings of the Kheel Trust Board of Trustees from its first meeting on February 19, 2004, tlu'ough June 3,2005.

4. At various board meetings, the trustees of the Kheel Trust discussed tile CCNY proposal and the Rangel Center.

5. The Kheel Trust Board of Trustees approved a grant to CCNY to fund the AIm S. Kheel Scholars on June 3, 2005.

6. The Ann S. Kheel Scholars Program has consistently been listed under the "Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service" section of the CCNY web site.

7. CCNY officials consistently represented to Respondent and his staff, potential donors, and tile public the donation from the Kheel Trust as a grant to the Rangel Center in its fimdraising for the Rangel Center.

8. In 2005, Respondent directed that his congressional staff develop a list of potential donors to the Rangel Center. This work was done on property of the House of Representatives, on official House time, and with the use of official House resources.

9. In June 2005, Respondent's staff prepared a fonnletter (the "June 2005 letter") to be sent under Respondent's signature to potential donors to the Rangel Center. This work was done on property of the House of Representatives, on official House time, and with the use of official House resources.

1. In the June 2005 letter Respondent stated, "I will be exploring with my Congressional colleagues how best to move this idea through the appropriations process and am optimistic about securing funds for the plmming phase of the creation of the Center. I request your advice mId assistance conceming how to approach the donor community, particularly private and corporate foundations interested in education. I look fOlward to entering into a dialogue with you on the funding of the Rangel Center concept in the coming weeks atld months."

2. The June 2005 letter was sent to over 100 foundations, including, inter alia, the Verizon Foundation, New Yor1e Life Foundation, The Starr Foundation, Ford Foundation, AT&T Foundation, Citi Foundation, JPMorgml Chase Foundation, Merrill Lynch & Co. Foundation, MetLife Foundation, Bristol-Meyers Squibb Foundation, Goldman Sachs Foundation, and Wachovia Foundation.

3. The ltme 2005 letter was sent to several foundations that serve as the philanthropic arm of related corporations, including, inter alia, Verizon COlllinunications, Inc. and New York Life Insurance CompmlY.

27. Respondent personally signed each of the June 2005 letters.

28. The June 2005 letters were written on congressional letterhead bearing the words "United States Congress" and "House of Representatives." Enclosed with each of the letters was a 20-page glossy brochure that requested a gift of "$30,000,000 or $6,000,000/year for five years."

29. The June 2005 letters, with enclosed brochures, were sent through the United

States mail using Respondent's frank.

1. In June 2005, the Ford Foundation expressed to Respondent its interest in leanling more about the Rangel Center.

2. In August 2005, Respondent sent a letter to Roger Balmik of The Balmik Foundation regarding the Rangel Center (the "Bahnik letter").

3. The Bahnik letter was written on congressional letterhead. The letter stated, "[ w ]hile I am disappointed that you will not be able to fund the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service, I thank you for consideration ofmy request."

4. In August 2005, Respondent sent another round of letters (the "August 2005 letters") to foundations, which were similar in content to the June 2005 letters.

5. The August 2005 letters were written on congressional letterhead bearing the words "United States Congress" and "House of Representatives." Enclosed with each letter was a "presentation."

6. In September 2005, Respondent sent a letter to Senator Robert Byrd seeking an earmark in the amount of $3 million in order "to launch the Charles B. Rangel Center at the City College of the City University of New York."

7. In September 2005, Respondent sent a letter to Donald Trump (the "Trump letter") requesting a meeting to discuss the Rangel Center.

8. The Trump letter was sent on congressional letterhead bearing a substantial portion ofthe Great Seal ofthe United States and the words "House of Representatives."

38. In September 2005, Respondent sent letters to the Carnegie Corporation of New

York and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (the "September 2005 letters"), which were similar in content to the June 2005 letters.

1. The September 2005 letters were sent on congressional letterhead bearing a substantial portion of the Great Seal of the United States and the words "House of Representatives." Enclosed with each letter was a "presentation."

2. In September 2005, a meeting occUlTed between Respondent, representatives of the Ford Foundation, and CCNY officials.

3. In December 2005, CCNY submitted a proposal to the Ford Foundation (the "December 2005 Ford Foundation proposal") regarding a potential contribution to the Rangel Center.

4. The December 2005 Ford FOUlldation proposal stated that "City College anticipates that the United States Congress will suppOli this initiative with a seed grant."

5. The Ford Foundation tentatively scheduled a lUllcheon for other foundations regarding the Rangel Center for May 5, 2006.

6. In March 2006, the Ford Foundation postponed the luncheon due to concerns about the lack of funding, including congressional appropriations, for the Rangel Center.

7. In March 2006, Respondent sent letters to members of the Subcommittee on Transpoliation, Treasury and Housing and Urban Development requesting earmarks in the amoUllt of $6 million "to help establish a Center for Public Service at the City College of New York in my Congressional District."

8. In March 2006, Respondent sent letters to members of the SubcOlmnittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education requesting earmarks in the amount of $6

million to "help establish a Center for Public Service at the City College of New York in my

Congressional District."

1. In March 2006, Respondent sent letters to members of the Senate seeking support for an earmark in the amount of $6 million "to help establish a Center for Public Service at the City College of New York in my Congressional District."

2. In early 2006, Respondent suggested that CCNY officials contact AIG regarding the Rangel Center.

3. In July 2006, Respondent sent another letter (the "July 2006 letters") to approximately 47 ofthe foundations he previously solicited, including the Ford Foundation.

4. The July 2006 letters were prepared by Respondent's staff. This work was done on property of the House of Representatives, on official House time, and with the use of official House resources.

5. The July 2006 letters were also written on congressional letterhead bearing the words "United States Congress" and "House of Representatives." The letters infonned potential donors that Respondent had secured eannarks of $3.6 million for the Charles B. Rangel Center project.

52. Respondent personally signed each of the July 2006 letters.

1. As of July 2006, Respondent had secured, in 2005, one eannark in the amount of $445,000 for the Rangel Center.

2. As of July 2006, earmarks in the total amount of $3,150,000 for the Rangel Center for fiscal year 2007 were included in appropriations bills coming out of the respective subcommittees of jurisdiction. Those eannarks were ultimately not included in any appropriations bills for fiscal year 2007.

3. In September 2006, Respondent met with CCNY officials and Eugene Isenberg, CEO of Nabors Industries, in the offices of Robert Morgenthau, then District Attomey for New York County to discuss the Rangel Center.

4. In November 2006, Isenberg pledged a personal contribution of $500,000 to the Rangel Center. Nabors Industries pledged a matching contribution of $500,000.

5. In February 2007, Respondent met with Eugene Isenberg and KelU1eth Kies, a federally-registered lobbyist, at the Carlyle Hotel in New York. They discussed tile issue of retroactivity of tax provisions related to inverted companies.

6. In June 2007, Respondent met with Eugene Isenberg at Respondent's office to again discuss the issue ofretroactivity of tax provisions related to inverted companies.

7. In October 2006, CCNY officials represented to the Ford Fonndation that tiley had obtained "the seed money the Congressman promised."

8. In October 2006, the Ford Foundation encouraged CCNY to submit a proposal for $1 million to fund academic programs at the Rangel Center.

9. In January 2007, the Ford Foundation hosted a luncheon (the "Ford Foundation lunch") to bring together Respondent and CCNY officials with other potential donors to tile Rangel Center.

10. Respondent made a presentation about the Rangel Center at the Ford Foundation lunch.

11. Other potential donors that attended the Ford Foundation lunch included, inter alia, Verizon Foundation, New York Community Trust, and Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

12. In March 2007, the Ford Foundation approved a grant in the amount of $1,000,000 for the Rangel Center.

13. In March 2007, Respondent sent letters to Donald Trump, David Rockefeller, and Maurice "Hank" Greenberg (the "March 2007 letters") requesting meetings to discuss the Rangel Center.

14. The March 2007 letters were sent on congressional letterhead bearing a substantial portion of the Great Seal of the United States and the words "House of Representatives. "

67. Respondent personally signed each of the March 2007 letters.

1. The March 2007 letters were prepared by Respondent's staff. This work was done on property of the House of Representatives, on official House time, and with the use of official House resources.

2. In March 2007, Respondent wrote a letter to the Chair of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education requesting earmarks in the amount of $6 million "to help establish a Center for Public Service at the City College of New York in my Congressional District."

3. In March 2007, Respondent wrote a letter to the Chair of the Subconnnittee on TranspOliation and Housing and Urban Development requesting an eannark "to make structural and rehabilitation work a [sic] Center for Public Service."

4. An eannark in the amount of approximately $245,000 for the City College of New York for "the planning, design, construction, renovation and buildout of a multipurpose educational facility" was included in the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat 1844 (2007).

5. An eannark in the amount of approximately $1.915 million for "the City College of New York for the Charles B. Rangel Center to prepare individuals for careers in public

service, which may include establishing an endowment, library, and archives for such center" was included in the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844 (2007).

1. In May 2007, Respondent spoke with Melvin NOlTis, a fonner House employee in Respondent's district office. NOlTis was then working as a New York state lobbyist for Verizon Communications, Inc. Respondent requested an update on the status of the Verizon Foundation donation to the Rangel Center.

2. In June 2007, Respondent spoke with George Nichols, a federally-registered lobbyist for New York Life Insurance Corporation, at a breakfast campaign fundraiser. Respondent requested that New York Life consider contributing to the Rangel Center.

3. On June 4,2007, Respondent met with Hank Greenberg, Chainnan of the Board ofthe StalT Foundation regarding a possible donation to the Rangel Center.

4. On June 12, 2007, the StalT Foundation approved a grant to the Rangel Center in the amount of $5,000,000.

5. In August 2007, Verizon Foundation approved a grant to the Rangel Center in the amount of $500,000. NOlTis infonned Respondent that the grallt had been approved.

6. In APlil 2008, Respondent met with CCNY officials and AIG officials (the "AIG meeting"), including Edward "Ned" Cloonan, a federally-registered lobbyist, regarding the Rangel Center. The briefing memo prepared for Respondent by CCNY stated the objective of the meeting was to "close $1 OM gift for the Rangel Center to create AIG Hal1."

7. At the AIG meeting, a potential donation to the Rangel Center was discussed. AIG raised concems about a potential donation, including the potential headline risk. Respondent asked AIG, at least twice, what was necessary to get this done.

8. On numerous occasions during 2005 through 2008, Respondent attended several meetings with CCNY officials and potential donors. These potential donors included Eugene Isenberg, Hank Greenberg, David Rockefeller, Donald Trump, the Ford Foundation, and AIG.

81. In addition to the contributions noted above, the following entities and individuals

solicited by Respondent made pledges and contlibutions to the Rangel Center:

1) Rhodebeck Chalitable Fund ($25,000); 2) David Rockefeller ($100,000); 3) New York Community Trust ($130,000); and 4) Rockefeller Brothers Fund ($50,000).

1. On numerous occasions during 2005 through 2008, Respondent and his staff used official House resources, including telephones, emails, and facsimile machines, to communicate with CCNY and others regarding fundraising for the Rangel Center.

2. During the relevant period, George Dalley, Jim Capel, and Dan Berger were House employees on Respondent's personal staff. Jon Sheiner was a House employee on the Ways and Means Committee staff.

3. During the relevant period, pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the duties of the Joint COimnittee on Taxation were the following: (1) to investigate the operation and effects of internal revenue taxes and the administration of such taxes; (2) to investigate measures and methods for the simplification of such taxes; (3) to malce reports to the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance (or to the House and the Senate) on the results of such investigations and studies and to make recommendations; and (4) to review any proposed refund or credit of income or estate and gift taxes or certain other taxes in excess of $2,000,000, as set forth in § 6405 of the Internal Revenue Code.

• Click here for Part II
• Click here for Part III