Hearing of the House Standards of Official Conduct - Sanction Hearing

Statement

CHAIR: The Committee will come to order. I would like the record to reflect that all ten members of the Committee are present. The Chair is authorized to recess the Committee at any time.

This hearing of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the Matter of Representative Charles B. Rangel will come to order.

When I designated the members of the adjudicatory subcommittee to consider the Statement of Alleged Violation in this matter, I noted that the Code of Government Ethics states clearly that a "public office is a public trust."

It was our responsibility to determine whether Representative Rangel's conduct met that standard. It was our obligation to act impartially as finders of fact and law. The members of the subcommittee fulfilled that responsibility and met that obligation. We did so fairly, honestly, and without bias.

The subcommittee did not prejudge the allegations against Representative Rangel. Indeed, the subcommittee did not find all of the alleged counts proven.

But ultimately, we found that his conduct failed to meet the ethical standards that apply to all Members of the House. Those standards apply equally to those of us who have the privilege of representing our communities in the House for the first time and to our most senior colleagues.

On November 16, 2010, the subcommittee in the Matter of Representative Charles B. Rangel determined that 11 of the 13 counts in the Statement of Alleged Violation in this matter were proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Under Committee rules, when a subcommittee concludes that one or more counts have been proved, it becomes the responsibility of the full Committee to determine whether to recommend disciplinary action regarding Representative Rangel and, if so, what form of sanction would be appropriate.

The Committee has the option to take disciplinary action on its own initiative, or to recommend that the full House do so.

The purpose of this hearing is to allow both Representative Rangel and Committee counsel to share their views with the members of the Committee as to what sanction would be appropriate in this matter.

As we begin, it is important to bear in mind that the purpose of the ethics process is not punishment, but accountability and credibility: accountability for the respondent, and credibility for the House itself.

Where a member has been found by his colleagues to have violated our ethical standards, that member must be held accountable for his conduct.

But it is perhaps equally important that the outcome demonstrate the credibility of the House of Representatives. By investigating credible allegations of misconduct and sanctioning conduct that is proven to violate an ethical standard, we maintain the integrity of the House and the trust of the public in this institution.

The Committee may recommend a range of sanctions.

Our rules provide some general guidelines to follow in recommending a sanction. For example, a letter of reproval may be issued by the Committee on its own initiative.

Other sanctions require action by the full House. Among these, our rules indicate that reprimand is appropriate for "serious violations," censure is appropriate for "more serious violations," and expulsion is appropriate for the "most serious violations."

Further, both the Committee and the House itself are guided by the precedents of the House. For example, the House has in its history expelled only five Members, three for disloyalty to the Union during the Civil War and two after they were convicted of felonies.

Our rules are clear that findings of violations alone should not be the basis for recommending a sanction. Instead, we are required to provide both the respondent and Committee counsel with an opportunity to share their views about disciplinary action.

In reaching our decision, it is imperative that we act in a fair and even-handed manner. I note that today's hearing is open to the public. Although our deliberations will take place in executive session, our colleagues and the public will have the opportunity to hear the views of the parties regarding an appropriate sanction.

Both Representative Rangel and Committee counsel have previously been advised of the guidelines for this hearing.

As with any other phase of the disciplinary process, the respondent may seek to waive this procedural step. He is not required to be here or to address the Committee.

Representative Rangel has chosen to be here today. He has the right to share his views on an appropriate sanction with us. Should he wish to do, we will hear him out, and take his opinion into consideration in our deliberations.

The parties will each be allotted 30 minutes to present their views to the Committee. Although they are not required to do so, they may submit written briefs for the Committee's consideration. If they do so, those filings will be included in the record.

As a general rule, witnesses are not permitted in this phase. However, if a written request for a witness is made, witness testimony may be allowed by a majority vote of the Committee. Neither party has, to this point, filed a written request seeking to permit witness testimony.

After we have heard from the parties, the Committee will deliberate in executive session. We will then determine, by majority vote, what disciplinary action we will recommend.

Our decision will be announced publicly, and the basis for our conclusions will also be explained in a public report to the House.

With that, I would ask my colleague, Ranking Member Jo Bonner, whether he would like to make a brief opening statement.

Source