Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) is trying to keep a grip on his gavel in the face of fresh revelations about his financial dealings, ongoing ethics inquiries into them and mounting calls for his ouster. But watchers of the powerful tax-writing panel are already looking at its roster of senior Democrats to try to figure out who would succeed Rangel if he decides to step aside.
Rangel met with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and other Democratic leaders Monday evening but declined to discuss the session afterward. Rangel said he hoped to answer the question youre concerned with at some other time.
But Pelosi answered no when asked later by reporters whether Rangel had offered to step down from his chairmanship.
Committee Democrats, aides and lobbyists declined to speculate publicly about who would lead the panel in Rangels absence, insisting the veteran Harlem lawmaker will weather the political storm continuing to rage over his faulty financial reports. I fully support Mr. Rangel as Chair of Ways and Means. He should not step down, Rep. Sander Levin (Mich.), the third-ranking Democrat on the committee, said in a statement.
Quietly, however, the controversy has breathed new life into a Beltway guessing game that began when Democrats reclaimed the majority. If Rangel can hang on, he will be bound by term limits to surrender his gavel in 2012. What happens then or, perhaps, much sooner is anything but clear.
If Rangel opts to step aside temporarily while the House ethics committee pursues three separate investigations into his personal finances and fundraising activity, House rules dictate that Rep. Pete Stark (Calif.), the second-ranking Democrat on the panel, will step in to replace him.
That was the protocol the party, and the committee, followed in June 1994, when then-Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.), dogged by a corruption probe, handed control over to then-Rep. Sam Gibbons (D-Fla.).
It is less certain what would happen if Rangel was forced to permanently forfeit his gavel. Though Democrats traditionally respect seniority in making committee promotions, Stark, like Gibbons, has a history of controversial remarks, prompting a widespread belief among Democrats that he would be too great a liability in the job. That view was brought into relief last year when Stark apologized after saying American troops were in Iraq to get their heads blown off for the presidents amusement.
Pelosi demonstrated her willingness to bypass the committee pecking order to find a chairman when, at the start of this Congress, she tapped Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) to helm the Intelligence Committee over his more-senior colleagues, Reps. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.). She has strong leverage in the process, in which chairmen are officially chosen by the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee and then ratified by the Democratic Caucus.
Next in line after Stark is Levin, a lawmaker many Democrats see as well-positioned to assume Rangels place. As ranking member of the panels subcommittee on Social Security, Levin in 2005 helped lead Democratic efforts to oppose President Bushs plan to add private accounts to the popular retirement program.