Rostenkowski Faces Voters as Inquiry Enters ‘Final Stages’

WASHINGTON — For more than a year, federal prosecutors have been investigating one of the most powerful and senior members of the House: Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.), chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

U.S. Atty. Eric Holder Jr. says that the investigation is now in its “final stages,” with an indictment considered a distinct possibility.

Investigators are looking into allegations that Rostenkowski was involved in schemes to misuse public funds. Specifically, prosecutors seek to determine whether the House post office converted massive amounts of stamps, purchased with office funds, into cash for Rostenkowski’s personal use.

They also are investigating allegations that public money was spent on goods from the House stationery store that were for Rostenkowski’s personal or campaign use, and that his office payroll included improper transactions.

Largely because of the reports, the bull-like Rostenkowski is running scared for the first time in nearly a half century of political life as he faces four opponents in the Democratic primary next week. Grand jury action is not anticipated before the primary election.

For his part, Rostenkowski has denied any wrongdoing, invoked his 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and hired one of Washington’s best criminal lawyers, Robert S. Bennett, to mount a defense.

Despite Rostenkowski’s obvious political and legal distress, many Republicans and a few Democrats have wondered aloud why the case is taking so long, demanding that the House Ethics Committee open a parallel probe. And their suspicions were fueled recently when President Clinton literally embraced Rostenkowski in a Chicago campaign appearance despite the ongoing inquiry.

“The President put his arm around the prime suspect in the investigation and endorsed him in a primary,” complained Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham (R-San Diego). “What message does that send” to prosecutors?

Clinton defended his actions, recalling that Rostenkowski is entitled to the presumption of innocence. And Atty. Gen. Janet Reno said that she has reminded the White House to do all it can not to give even the appearance of political favoritism in such cases.

Although the investigation of the House post office was started during a Republican Administration, it has continued with the same prosecutors even with the Democrats in power. Rostenkowski’s alleged involvement in skimming cash from the House post office was implied in a guilty plea last July by former House Postmaster Robert V. Rota.

Rep. Ernest Istook Jr. (R-Okla.) said that Rota’s plea agreement should trigger a House inquiry to determine which members of Congress improperly received cash for stamps. The plea agreement implicated someone identified in the documents only as “Congressman A,” but whose stamp purchases matched those made by Rostenkowski.

“It is a smoking gun--it cannot be ignored,” Istook said. The House, however, voting mainly along party lines, rejected Istook’s call and instead authorized its ethics panel to proceed only when it would not interfere with the Justice Department investigation.

Sources close to the inquiry speculated that the U.S. attorney may be taking more time than usual to strengthen the case rather than letting Rostenkowski off the hook, largely because of Rota’s potential vulnerability as a government witness.

For example, Rota admitted that he lied to Justice Department attorneys and congressional investigators on separate occasions to cover up direct cash payments to members of Congress.

Prosecutors’ concerns about Rota’s credibility on the witness stand may have led them to broaden the investigation to cover Rostenkowski’s transactions with the House Finance Office and the House stationery store.

In that connection, Rostenkowski recently sent checks totaling $82,095 in repayment for purchases from the stationery store that were “for personal use” rather than official business, an action viewed as belated acknowledgment of possible misconduct in the past. This could bolster anticipated defense contentions that any misuse of funds was inadvertent rather than deliberate.