A year and a half into his first term as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Charlie Rangel was the speaker at the June 30 On/Off the Record Breakfast held at the Commerce Bank location on 42nd and Madison.

Speaking to a standing room-only audience, Rangel discussed what the work he has been doing as chairman has meant for New York and for the nation, and what having the title of chairman has meant for his ability to get attention for his positions. Rangel laid out his take on closing tax loopholes, the real story behind his role getting Hillary Clinton to run for Senate and drop out of the presidential race and his view of racial tension in New York City.
What follows are selections from the edited transcript.




Q: You're the first chairman of the Ways and Means Committee from New York in 50 years. What do you think it means for New York to have a congressman from New York as chair of this so important committee?

A: The first and most important thing is, you don't have to explain to a chairman from New York City the problems New York City has. ... Sometimes when you are the chairman, it's not exactly what you have done but what you have stopped from being done. We've gone through a tough time with this administration and, even though it doesn't fall within the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee, my opposition to this immoral war, I think, has been enhanced by the fact that they can say, "Rangel, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee." It makes a difference. Whether it should or not-that doesn't make any difference. The fact is it does make a difference. Whenever there's anything concerning veterans, I feel with all of my heart that this country has been so unjust in the way we've treated those people that were asked to go off to fight this immoral war. If I just go down in history as the last one to fight this war, I'd be all right.




Q: The economic situation is very much on people's minds. At this point, would you call this a recession, a slowdown, a rough patch? What is it to you?

A: I don't care what you call it. When it reaches the point you're saying that middle class Americans cannot put food on the table and have to go to pantries and tell their kids that they can't stay in college, can't meet their rent, can't meet their mortgage payments-that is sadder than anything that's happening at Wall Street, because this is really what's made America to me so great. ... There's no one that came to this country that didn't want to be middle class. And now they're taking that away from us, and no one's raising hell about it. In other words, it would seem to me that if, after all the struggle after two or three generations, it reaches the point that you can't take care of your family and someone from the government says, "I'm from the federal government. I'm going to pass $169 billion in stipends." That's a hand-out. And guess what-you're borrowing the money to do it. It would seem to me that common sense would say that any tax code that doesn't protect the middle class is economically flawed. Anybody that justifies it is not being honest.




Q: Healthcare is another major concern you have spoken about in the past-if, as you hope, the next president is Barack Obama, do you think that there will be another big effort to redo the health care system in this country?

A: He can't afford not to address it, because it's a hemorrhage. You cannot avoid the hemorrhage. Health care is a hemorrhage. Jail care as opposed to education is a hemorrhage. The war is a hemorrhage. If you just recognize what's going on, that's an accomplishment. Something's got to stop. That's the stop. And someone should say, "And how are you going to pay for it?" And I submit to you that there are trillions of dollars in the tax code, preferential treatment if you will, that serves not economic purpose. Since I've been the chairman of the Ways and Means committee, it shouldn't surprise you that I have a lot of new friends. It's totally unbelievable. I try to remember their names. I see them in the papers. They really reached me not through them stopping by the house on the weekend, saying, "Charlie, can we talk?" The way they get my attention is getting the Congress's attention-and that's through a lobbyist. You have to understand that CEOs are very intelligent people, and if you show them a loophole, they'd be stupid not to take advantage of it. To just say that good CEOs take advantage of loopholes is redundant. They do that. But if you were to ask them, "Are you taking this loophole at the expense of education? No. At the expense of healthcare? No. Do you ever take into consideration the cost of this war? As it relates to what's happening to our economy? No." But who does these things? The lobbyists. What is the lobbyist paid to do? To get preferential treatment. That's their job. You mean having an economically sound economy is not their job? No, it's not. Education and health? No, it's not their job. ... Their job is to get those tax loopholes. And they have been pretty darn effective. So I put out a tax bill that said I can reduce-and that's the Democrats on the committee, taxes for 99 million people-reduce the taxes and pay for it by closing loopholes. It's been in the Wall Street Journal. It's been in all the major newspapers. No one's run me out of town yet.




Q: Let's talk about the presidential election a little more. You were the person who convinced Hillary Clinton to run for Senate in the first place.

A: Let me clear the record on that. I was engaged to my wife for seven years before I asked her to get married. I still think it was my idea to get married. So yes, I convinced her to run for the Senate.




Q: You were one of her stronger backers. When the last primary was held, there was a period between that night and when she decided to leave the race. The reports at the time had it that you were one of the people who convinced her that it was time to exit the race. What did you say to her to convince her that it was the right moment?

A: I said the New York delegation was prepared to stay with her until the very end. And we thought that had come.




Q: Do you think Senator Obama should pick her as his running mate?

A: I think the more people that really want her as vice president that would just shut up, the easier it might be for someone to make that decision without having it appear as though a lot of pressure was being placed on the Democratic nominee. All I can say is, that if you got 16 million votes on one side and 16 million votes on the other side, and together that's 32 million votes, it just makes a lot of arithmetic sense to me.




Q: In New York City, there have been questions about where we are on issues of racial sensitivity related to the Sean Bell shooting and the verdict. Some people say we're in a much better state than we were. Some say that there are tensions under the surface that were exposed with the shooting. What's your take on where things are in this city?

A: I don't think they were under the surface at all. People don't truly understand that in the Sean Bell case, the law was against the victims. The law was against the victims. There's not none of this business about having a jury of your peers when you are the victim and you're in law enforcement. The peers of a policeman charged with violating his responsibility are the judges and the district attorney's office. They are the peers. When a defendant knowingly says, "I don't want any regular people, I want one of my peers. I want a judge because he or she can be objective," than you already set that the law is against the victim. To have a law like that is wrong. To have officers being trained without living in the city is wrong.




Q: Do you think it says anything greater about the situation in the city as far as racial tension or unfairness in general?

A: It's so bad that black cops don't know which side they're on as it relates to fairness in terms of victims, where certain neighborhoods you figure you can mistreat citizens a hell of a lot easier because of their color or economic background. That is so obvious that everyone knows that. Very few people want to talk about it, but if you had just have some kids in school to ask, "Where would you most likely get shot? Does your color make a difference as to the likelihood of getting shot?" Kids can answer those questions. It's all we can talk about, but it exists. And it's sad.