In the Matter of Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, like many Members of the House, I have long considered Charlie Rangel a friend and a great public servant, but that is not before us now.

We must now consider a report from the Ethics Committee finding that Mr. Rangel violated the rules of the House and recommending that he be censured for that. I do not disagree that he violated the rules of the House in serious ways; but under our standards and precedents, his conduct merits a reprimand, not a censure.

In his actions, Mr. Rangel showed carelessness, poor judgment, and a severe disregard for the rules of the House. Some sanction is necessary and appropriate, but our precedents command a reprimand, not a censure.

Censure has been reserved for corruption, personal corruption, improper personal financial gain and intent to gain money, or sexual misconduct. None of that is present here. You heard the discussion of people who were censured for personal financial gain, for bribery, for lying to the committee, such as Messrs. Wilson and Diggs and people like Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Hansen who committed severe infractions but were reprimanded.

In this case, the staff director and chief counsel of the Ethics Committee said he saw ``no evidence of corruption.'' Further, he admitted he did not believe Mr. Rangel was trying to enrich himself.

What happened according to the chief counsel and the finding of the committee was that Mr. Rangel was overzealous in his advocacy for City College and sloppy in his financial dealings. Neither overzealousness nor sloppiness merits censure.

While not as severe as censure, reprimand is a very serious punishment. If passed in this case, it would reflect the collective judgment of the entire House that the conduct of Mr. Rangel was wrong and deserves a serious sanction.

The decision by the Ethics Committee to recommend censure was based, it said, on the ``cumulative nature of the violations'' and ``because the 11 violations committed by Representative Rangel on a continuous and prolonged basis were more serious in character, meriting a strong congressional response rebuking his behavior.''

What this ignores, however, is that eight of the 11 separate counts all stemmed from just one factor: Mr. Rangel's belief that certain advocacy for City College, an institution in his district, amounted to constituent service and therefore constituted official action.

Second, Mr. Rangel did not, as Mr. Bonner said, fail to pay taxes for 17 years. Of course he paid taxes, and filed every one of those years. He did fail to report some income from a villa he owned.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

The time of the gentleman from Virginia has expired.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I would yield 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. NADLER. He did fail to report some income because he mistakenly believed that the income which was plowed back into the mortgages from which he never saw a check was not reportable. This was wrong. But it was one ongoing error, not cumulative and not a continuing error.

I ask my colleagues to consider all of this. A reprimand is a serious punishment that reflects our precedents and standards. That will reflect credibly on the House. A censure, a punishment never previously imposed for this level of violation of House rules with no adequate explanation for the sudden change in standards offends one's sense of fair play and therefore does not reflect credibly on the House.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source