[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 156 (Thursday, December 2, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H7891-H7899]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES B. RANGEL OF NEW YORK
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I call up privileged
resolution, H. Res. 1737, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1737
Resolved, That (1) Representative Charles B. Rangel of New
York be censured; (2) Representative Charles B. Rangel
forthwith present himself in the well of the House for the
pronouncement of censure; (3) Representative Charles B.
Rangel be censured with the public reading of this resolution
by the Speaker; and (4) Representative Rangel pay restitution
to the appropriate taxing authorities or the U.S. Treasury
for any unpaid estimated taxes outlined in Exhibit 066 on
income received from his property in the Dominican Republic
and provide proof of payment to the Committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for purposes of debate only, and I
ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control those 30 minutes.
Of my remaining 30 minutes, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama, the ranking member on the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct, Mr. Bonner, for purposes of debate only, and I ask unanimous
consent that he be permitted to control those 15 minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
As the chair of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and as
chair of the adjudicatory subcommittee in the matter of Mr. Rangel, I
rise in support of the resolution which calls for censure of
Representative Charles B. Rangel.
Article I, section 5 of the Constitution provides that ``each House
may punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the
Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.''
In the House, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is
charged with recommending and enforcing ethical standards that ensure
that Members and staff act in a manner befitting that public trust.
It is the role of the committee to review allegations that a Member
has violated those standards. In this case, after a lengthy and
thorough investigation that spanned more than 2 years and resulted in a
5,000-page report, the committee concluded that this Member violated
those standards. We were charged with recommending an appropriate
sanction to the House.
The entire report has been available to Members of the House and the
public on the committee's Web site. Many portions of the report have
previously been publicly released, some since July.
Here is a brief summary of the findings of that report and why the
committee recommended censure.
In this matter, we found that Representative Rangel engaged in
misconduct in four areas.
Mr. Rangel improperly solicited individuals and entities with
businesses and interest before the House to fund the Charles B. Rangel
Center for Public Service at City College of New York. He misused
official resources to make these solicitations for millions of dollars.
He improperly solicited funds from lobbyists.
He failed to file full and complete financial disclosure statements
for 10 years.
He accepted a favor or benefit related to his use of a residential,
rent-stabilized apartment as a campaign office under circumstances that
created an appearance of impropriety.
He failed to report and pay taxes for years on income he received
from a property he owns in the Dominican Republic.
We found that Representative Rangel's conduct in each of those four
areas violated laws and regulations, as well as the rules of the House
and standards of conduct, namely that he:
Violated the Gift and Solicitation Ban, a statute enacted by Congress
in 1989;
Violated clauses 2 and 5 of the Code of Ethics for Government
Service;
Violated postal service laws and regulations issued by the Franking
Commission;
Violated the rules of this House, including the Code of Conduct;
Violated the Purpose Law, a statute which derives directly from the
Constitution;
Violated the Ethics in Government Act; and
Violated the Internal Revenue Code.
A bipartisan majority of his colleagues concluded that 11 of the 13
counts in the Statement of Alleged Violation regarding these areas of
his misconduct were proved by clear and convincing evidence.
We found his actions and accumulation of actions ``reflected poorly
on the institution of the House and, thereby, brought discredit to the
House.''
{time} 1610
Nothing we say or do here today will in any way diminish his service
to our country or our gratitude for his service, both in this House and
as a hero of the Korean War.
But that service does not excuse the fact that Representative Rangel
violated laws. He violated regulations. He violated the rules of this
House. And he violated the standards of conduct.
Because of that misconduct, the nonpartisan committee staff
recommended that he be censured, and a bipartisan majority of the
committee voted to recommend censure.
The committee also voted to require that he pay restitution to taxing
authorities.
Censure is a very serious sanction and one rarely imposed by the
House. The decision to recommend that sanction was not reached lightly.
In making its recommendation, the committee considered the
aggregation of Representative Rangel's misconduct. The committee
concluded that his violations occurred on a ``continuous and prolonged
basis'' and were ``more serious in character, meriting a strong
Congressional response rebuking his behavior.''
For the violations related to the payment of taxes, the committee
considered not only the amount of taxes he failed to pay over many
years, but the fact that he served at various times in highly visible
and influential positions as both chairman and ranking member of the
Ways and Means Committee.
It brought discredit to the House when this Member, with great
responsibility for tax policy, did not fully pay his taxes for many
years.
Some have questioned whether a recommendation of censure is
consistent with the committee's past precedent. It is true that in the
committee's roughly 40 years of existence, the House has censured just
four Members. But it is also true that for precedent to be followed, a
precedent must be set.
We follow precedent, but we also set it. For example, nearly 30 years
ago, the committee recommended that two Members be reprimanded for
engaging in sexual relations with pages. The House rejected the
recommendation and instead censured those two Members. It is possible
that if that situation were to occur again today, this House might not
feel censure is a severe enough action.
Many of us in this body pledged 4 years ago to create the most
honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history. Censure for
this misbehavior is consistent with that pledge.
At the hearing, the nonpartisan committee counsel said clearly that
Representative Rangel's pattern of misconduct appeared to reflect
``overzealousness'' and ``sloppiness.'' But he also said that did not
excuse his misconduct.
In light of those considerations, a bipartisan majority of the
committee concluded that it was appropriate to recommend to the House
that Representative Rangel be censured.
Throughout this matter, key decisions were made with bipartisan
votes. Not all votes were unanimous, but each was made on the basis of
a bipartisan, majority vote.
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.
[[Page H7892]]
Representative Rangel has violated the public trust. While it is
difficult--actually painful--to sit in judgment of our colleague, it is
our duty under the Constitution to do so. And, accordingly, I bring
this resolution to the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for
15 minutes.
Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is a solemn moment for this House in a time where, in a little
under an hour, all of our Members will have an opportunity to make a
statement with their vote. As such, and because the rules allow Mr.
Rangel 30 minutes to defend himself against the recommendation of the
committee, and the committee's time is being evenly divided between the
chair and the ranking member, I want to inform the body that there will
only be three Members on this side of the aisle who will speak. I say
this because there have obviously been a number of Members who have
approached me, even some on this committee, asking for time. But out of
respect for all, and especially in light of the rare nature of this
debate, I intend to recognize our time only to myself, Mr. Hastings,
the former chair of the Ethics Committee and our colleague who served
for almost 2 years on the investigative subcommittee, as well as our
colleague, Mr. McCaul, who served as the ranking member of the
adjudicatory subcommittee during that phase of this matter.
Naturally, if other Members care to have their views inserted into
the Record, we would have no objection.
With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
McCaul).
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the gentleman from
Alabama for his leadership on this solemn occasion. This is an
important day for Mr. Rangel, for the Congress, but most importantly,
for the American people. As the ranking member during the Rangel
adjudicatory proceedings and as a former Federal prosecutor in the
Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice, I take this
responsibility very seriously.
And let me be clear, no Member asked for this assignment. But we
accept our responsibility here today for no other reason than to
protect the honor, integrity, and credibility of this great
institution.
The America's people confidence in us is at historic lows. They want
their elected representatives held accountable for their actions, just
as they are held accountable as private citizens. And today, we have an
opportunity to begin a new era restoring the trust of the American
people.
The committee agreed on 12 of the 13 counts, finding that he violated
multiple rules of the House and Federal statutes, including the most
fundamental code of conduct, which states ``a Member . . . of the House
shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect
credibility on the House.'' And credibility is exactly what is at stake
here; the very credibility of the House of Representatives itself
before the American people.
Most egregiously, the committee found that Mr. Rangel failed to pay
his income taxes for 17 years. And this, while serving as chairman of
the committee that writes the tax laws for the Nation. What kind of
message does this send to the average working man or woman who plays by
the rules and struggles every day to pay their own taxes?
Mr. Rangel also solicited contributions from corporations,
foundations, and lobbyists who had business before his committee to
build a school bearing his name. I have consistently opposed Members of
Congress naming monuments after themselves.
The committee recommended the most severe punishment available based
upon the facts and the precedents. This sanction is both rare and
historic.
Founding Father John Adams said that ``moral authority and character
increases as the importance of the position increases.'' In his letter
to the Speaker, Mr. Rangel stated that as chairman of the Ways and
Means Committee, he is to be held to a higher standard of propriety. I
agree. Mr. Rangel failed to hold himself to this higher standard. And
the American people deserve better.
And I sincerely feel for Mr. Rangel as a human being.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman another 15 seconds.
Mr. McCAUL. And while I sincerely feel for Mr. Rangel as a human
being, I feel more strongly that a public office is a public trust. And
Mr. Rangel violated that trust.
The Speaker challenged us to enter into a new era of transparency and
accountability. Let us begin today. Let justice be served. Let us begin
to enter into a new era of ethics to restore the credibility and
integrity of this House, the people's House.
Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I now yield 3\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend
from Alabama for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, for over 2 years I served on the investigative committee
that reviewed allegations and evidence involving Mr. Rangel, and we
found substantial reason to believe, which is what our threshold was,
that violations occurred. Because the facts of this matter are not
disputed, I will not comment on the evidence. But I will, however,
comment on the length of the investigation and particularly a statement
made by Mr. Rangel regarding the confidential work of the investigative
committee.
First, on the length of the investigation. Chairman Green and I, when
I was the ranking member of the subcommittee, had every intention of
completing the investigation before the conclusion of the 110th
Congress, but events intervened.
{time} 1620
In September 2008, Mr. Rangel publicly pledged that he would release
in a timely manner a forensic analysis of 20 years of his tax returns
and financial disclosures. However, we did not receive the report until
May of 2009, 8 months later.
Then, in December 2008, serious new allegations involving Nabors
Industries resulted in the committee's unanimous decision to expand its
jurisdiction.
In August of 2009, amendments filed by Mr. Rangel to his financial
disclosures raised serious new questions, resulting in the committee
unanimously expanding an investigation once again.
Finally, after receiving the information long requested from him, the
subcommittee completed its work, and sent the Statement of Alleged
Violations to him on May 27, 2010. Remember that date.
Now, on Mr. Rangel's statement--and here I am going to be very
critical, Mr. Speaker. Let me read a statement he made in an article
dated June 6, 2010, in Politico--and I'm quoting Mr. Rangel now.
``I would normally believe, being a former Federal prosecutor, that
if the allegations involve my conduct as a Member of the House and
there is a committee with Republicans and Democrats there, then that
you refer to the committee. And if they're so confused after 18 months
that they can't find anything, then that is a story.''
Mr. Rangel, in my view, had misrepresented the work of the
subcommittee. Why do I say that? Because the comments he made were
comments over a week after the subcommittee had transmitted a detailed
confidential Statement of Allegations, accompanied with thousands of
pages of documents, to him. He knew the contents of the report.
Confused?
There is no confusion. Everything was in his possession. He knew what
the subcommittee produced, and he deliberately misrepresented its
contents. In fact, he was aware of the subcommittee's work as early as
December 15, 2009, when he testified before the committee. In addition,
after he received the SAV, he subsequently met in executive session, at
his request, two more times with his counsel.
I mention this because there is discussion of process in this matter.
It is completely disingenuous to suggest that the subcommittee had
treated him unfairly.
[[Page H7893]]
So, Mr. Speaker, the investigative subcommittee completed its
responsibilities to the House and the American people in a timely,
professional, and responsible manner. The facts supporting the 11
violations are not disputed.
I will vote for the resolution.
Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized
for 30 minutes.
Mr. RANGEL. First, let me apologize to this august body for putting
you in this very awkward position today.
To the Ethics Committee, I do recognize that it is not a job that
many of us would want to have.
Last week, as we were reading about the North Koreans attacking the
South Koreans, I was haunted by the fact that, on November 30, 60 years
ago, I was in Korea as a young, 20-year-old volunteer in the 2nd
Infantry Division. On that occasion, in subzero weather--20 degrees
below zero--the Chinese surrounded us and attacked, and there were
hundreds of casualties wounded and killed and captured. Bugles blared
and screams were heard.
I was wounded and had no thoughts that I would be able to survive.
But God gave me the strength, not only to survive, although wounded,
but to find my way out of the entrapment, and for 3 days, I had the
strength to lead 40 of my comrades out of that situation. We all were
haunted by the fact that so many of my comrades did not survive it.
I tell you that story, not for sympathy, but to let you know that, at
that time, in every sense, I made up my mind that I could never
complain to God for any events that occurred in my life and that I
would dedicate my life to trying, in some meaningful way, to improve
the quality of life for all Americans as well as do as much as I could
for humankind.
It is for that reason that I stand to say that I have made serious
mistakes. I do believe rules are made to be enforced. I do believe that
we in the Congress have a higher responsibility than most people. I do
believe that senior Members should act, in a way, as a model for new
and less experienced Members. I do believe that there should be
enforcement of these laws. There should be sanctions.
But if you're breaking new ground, I ask for fairness. In none of the
precedents of the history of this great country has anyone ever
suffered the humiliation of a censure when the record is abundantly
clear and never challenged, and when, in those 2 years of
investigations which I called for, counsel on the committee found no
evidence at all of corruption, found no evidence of self-enrichment,
found no evidence that there was an intention on my part to evade my
responsibility, whether in taxes or whether in financial disclosures.
There is absolutely no excuse for my omissions for my responsibility
to obey those rules. I take full credit for the responsibility of that.
I brought it on myself, but I still believe that this body has to be
guided by fairness. So that's all I'm saying. I'm not here to complain.
I have too much to be thankful for, being from where I am and who I am
today.
Once again, it has been awkward, especially for my friends and
supporters, but I want to respect the dignity of the community that
elected me to serve them. I want to continue to serve this Congress and
this country and do what I can to make life better for other people,
and I think we all agree that, in 40 years, I've tried my darndest to
do that.
So, at this point, by unanimous consent, I would like to turn the
remainder of the time that the Chair has given to me to my fellow
colleague, Bobby Scott.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Virginia will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I served on the special subcommittee appointed to
investigate this matter, and dissented from the subcommittee report. I
rise to oppose the pending motion to adopt the resolution.
I believe that, under precedents of the House, imposing censure on
one of our Members for violating procedural rules of the House under
these circumstances would be singularly harsh, unfair, and without
precedent. Now, Mr. Rangel has acknowledged his mistakes, and he has
asked to be punished fairly, which means punished just like everybody
else similarly situated. Accordingly, I believe the punishment is
appropriate, but I believe that censure is inappropriate.
Congressman Charles B. Rangel is a dedicated public servant and a
decorated soldier who has made outstanding contributions to the people
of his congressional district, to the United States, and to this
institution.
{time} 1630
Yet he has made mistakes which have resulted in violations of the
rules of official conduct for Members of the House and he will be
punished for those violations. The question is what is the appropriate
punishment?
We need not answer this question in a vacuum. Congressman Rangel is
not the first Member to violate rules of official conduct, so we have
ample precedents from which to glean the appropriate punishment. It is
clear from the precedents of the House that censure is not a fair and
just punishment for these violations. When censure or even reprimand
has been imposed for violations in past cases, they have involved
direct financial gain or criminal or corrupt conduct. The committee
counsel during the hearings acknowledged that those elements are not
found in this case. Furthermore, the committee report in this matter
acknowledges that the recommendation of censure in this case is in
violation of prior case precedents. The point is made in the report on
page 7, and I quote:
``Although prior committee precedent for recommendation of censure
involved many cases of direct financial gain, this committee's
recommendation for censure is based on the cumulative nature of the
violations and not direct personal gain.'' But using ``cumulative
nature of the violations'' to support the committee's recommendation of
censure is without precedent. In the case of former Congressman George
Hansen, the committee stated that, and I quote, ``It has been the
character of the offenses which established the level of punishment
imposed, not the cumulative nature of the offenses.'' And so a review
of prior precedents establish that neither the character nor the
cumulative nature of the violations warrant censure.
Eight of the 11 counts that the committee found that Congressman
Rangel has violated are for raising money for a center at a public
university in his congressional district. The program is to train young
people to go into public service, using his life experience as an
inspiration. Assisting a constituent institution with such a project is
not a violation in and of itself, but there are proper procedures to be
followed if you're going to raise money for a local college. He openly
assisted the institution, clearly with no intent to do anything
improper, but he did unfortunately violate the rules by not following
proper procedures. Once the determination was made that he used
official resources to help the local college, that one mistake has been
converted into almost eight different counts:
One, he used the letterhead; two, he used the staff; three, he used
office equipment; he used franked mail; all from the fact that he
cannot use official resources. That was a mistake for which he should
be punished. The question is what should the punishment be for messing
up and raising money improperly?
Well, we have the case of former Speaker Newt Gingrich who was found
to have violated House rules by misusing tax-exempt entities to fund a
partisan college course aimed at recruiting new members to the
Republican Party after he had been warned not to. Moreover, he was
found to have filed four false reports to the committee about the
matter in 13 instances, causing substantial delays and expense to the
committee. Yet he was reprimanded, not censured, and did not lose his
job as Speaker. Congressman Rangel did not lie about his activities, he
gained no partisan advantage, he believed that he was doing right
although he made mistakes, and he received no prior warning, as did
Speaker Gingrich. Yet Congressman Rangel lost his
[[Page H7894]]
chairmanship on Ways and Means and now faces the possibility of a
censure, not a reprimand, as Speaker Gingrich received.
Another example of raising money in violation of House rules involved
former House majority leader Tom DeLay. He was admonished by the
committee for participating in and facilitating an energy company fund-
raiser which the committee found created an appearance of
``impermissible special treatment or access.'' Mr. DeLay was also cited
for his ``intervention in a partisan conflict in the Texas House of
Representatives using the resources of a Federal agency, the FAA.'' An
ethics investigation involved accusations of solicitation and receipt
of campaign contributions in return for legislative assistance, use of
corporate political contributions in violation of State law, and
improper use of official resources for political purposes. I think
everybody here is aware of recent news reports that Mr. DeLay has been
convicted of charges of money laundering in connection with
circumventing a State law against corporate contributions to political
campaigns. For being found guilty of money laundering and conspiracy,
the media reports that he faces possible prison sentences of between 5
and 99 years in prison. Yet the House did not censure Mr. DeLay, nor
did they even impose a reprimand. They only issued a committee letter.
Mr. Rangel has made mistakes and he should be punished, just like
everyone else in the past, consistent with precedents.
On the issue of Mr. Rangel's rent-stabilized apartment for use as a
campaign office, let the record reflect that Mr. Rangel's landlord knew
of his use of the apartment for a campaign office and did not see it as
illegal. And the committee records reflect that an attorney for the New
York housing authority testified that the use decision was up to the
landlord. If somebody rented the apartment that was not technically
protected by the rent stabilization law, the tenant is not protected;
however, the lease is permitted. That's what the attorney for the
housing authority said. And I don't know whether that's right or wrong,
but that's what Charlie Rangel believed, that's what his landlord
believed, and that's what the housing authority lawyer believed.
Now let's talk about this apartment. It had been vacant for months.
Charlie paid sticker price for the rent. He passed nobody on the
waiting list. This is not a corrupt scheme. To the extent that there is
a violation, let's punish him consistent with others who have had
problems. Earl Hilliard, for example, was found by the committee to
have been paying more than market rent for his campaign headquarters;
the rent paid to family members who owned the building. He was not
censured. He wasn't even reprimanded. He received a committee letter.
Other cases involving campaign violations and use of official
resources have not resulted in censure. One example is the case of Bud
Shuster for violations of House rules related to campaign and other
violations. He was found to have knowingly allowed a former employee-
turned-lobbyist to communicate with him within 12 months following her
resignation, to influence his schedule and give him advice pertaining
to his office. He was also found to have violated the House gift rule,
to have misused official congressional resources, misused official
congressional staff for campaign purposes, and to have made certain
expenditures from his campaign accounts for expenses that were not for
bona fide campaign or political purposes. Yet he received a letter, not
a censure, not even a reprimand. Although both of those cases involved
personal financial gain and intentional violations of the rules, the
sanction for both was a letter of reproval. Mr. Rangel neither
personally benefited nor intended to violate the rules.
There is an issue now of his failure to report income on rental
property, on property he owned in the Dominican Republic, and report
those appropriately on his disclosure statement. I say ``properly,''
because ownership and some rental payments were in fact reported on his
disclosure, so there's nothing to cover up. And while he did not file
all his reports properly, these are not matters that warrant censure.
Mistakes made on disclosure are usually corrected with nothing more
said. The only cases where there is a violation, a sanction, for
failing to disclose are cases where there is some corrupt cover-up. For
example, failing to file campaign contributions from Tonsong Park
during Korea-Gate or failing to have loans or assets with those who
would reveal a conflict of interest. The committee found no evidence
that failure to report was for financial gain or cover-up.
The tax issues. Comment was made that he hadn't paid taxes for 17
years. Let's say a word about those taxes. Tax matters involved a deal
where he and many others had pooled their rents and paid expenses and
anything left over was profit. Well, it wasn't as profitable as they
hoped. He got a couple of small checks over all those years and that
was it. However, one of the bills paid was his mortgage. And diminution
of principal is technically income on which you have to pay taxes.
Whatever sanction there should be for that transgression should be
consistent with precedents. The only example of anybody sanctioned for
tax matters in this House in the history of the United States have been
those who did not pay taxes on bribes they received. That's it. All we
ask is that he be sanctioned like everyone else.
Since there is no indication that Charlie Rangel's reporting
violations were intended for financial gain, concealment or other
corruption, censure is clearly not the just sanction. Moreover, he
hired a forensic accountant to assure that all of the matters have been
cleared up. He knows he messed up. He knows he'll be punished. We just
ask that he be punished like everybody else. Unfortunately, Charlie
Rangel will be punished for his transgressions but neither the nature
of the offenses nor their cumulative impact has been a sufficient basis
for censure of any other Member in the past. Nor has the level of one's
position been a basis for sanction as we said in the case of Newt
Gingrich or Tom DeLay. Both had multiple serious violations that were
intentional with aggravations such as concealment, lying and failure to
heed warnings, none of which are in this case.
{time} 1640
All the instances of censure, reprimand, reproval, admonishment and
other cases of sanctioning make it clear that censure is not an
appropriate sanction in this case. Now, Charlie is not asking to be
excused for his conduct. He accepts responsibility. All we ask is that
we cite what has been done in the past for conduct similar to his and
apply a sanction similar to those sanctions. And based on the
precedent, there is no precedence for a censure in this case.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
King).
Mr. KING of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me express my profound respect for
Chairperson Lofgren, Ranking Member Bonner, my friends Mr. Hastings and
Mr. McCaul, and all the members of the Ethics Committee for their
dedicated efforts in this very, very painful matter. Having said that,
I will vote against this censure resolution because I do not believe
the findings warrant the severe penalty of censure. I reached this
conclusion after reading and studying hundreds of pages of committee
documents, including the subcommittee findings, the minority views of
Congressman Scott, the report of the full committee, and myriad
exhibits and correspondence.
Mr. Speaker, censure is an extremely severe penalty. In the more than
200-year history of this body, only 22 Members have been subjected to
censure. None in more than a quarter century.
If expulsion is the equivalent of the death penalty, then censure is
life imprisonment.
Mr. Speaker, I have found no cases where charges similar to or
analogous to those against Congressman Rangel resulted in censure. Thus
far, this penalty has been reserved for such violations as supporting
armed insurrection against the United States and sexual abuse of
minors. In Congressman Rangel's case, as Mr. Scott pointed out, the
committee chief council said he found no evidence of corruption, and
the committee report itself said there was no ``direct personal gain''
to Congressman Rangel.
Mr. Speaker, my religious faith is based on Scripture and tradition.
My
[[Page H7895]]
training as a lawyer has taught me to respect precedent. Why, today,
are we being asked to reverse more than 200 years of tradition and
precedent?
There is no doubt that Congressman Rangel has violated rules of this
House, but these violations are malum prohibitum, not malum in se.
There is no evidence or finding of criminal intent, no mens rea. As
Congressman Scott pointed out, it was public record that Charlie Rangel
was living in a rent-stabilized apartment. That was hidden from nobody.
It was public record that his campaign headquarters was in a rent-
stabilized building. It was hidden from nobody. It was also public
record that Charlie Rangel had a home in the Dominican Republic. It was
public record that Charlie Rangel was trying to obtain funding for a
public university in his district. Nothing was hidden. So where is the
criminal intent? That is why I strongly believe the appropriate penalty
is a reprimand.
Why are we departing so significantly from tradition and precedent in
the case of Charlie Rangel? Certainly it can't be because of who he is
or what he has achieved in his life--a kid from the inner city who
emerged from very troubled surroundings to be a combat soldier and an
authentic war hero who left his blood in Korea, who worked his way
through law school, who became a distinguished prosecutor in the United
States Attorney's Office, who was elected to the New York State
Legislature and to the United States Congress, where he has served with
distinction 40 years.
Now, lest my Republican friends get nervous, let me make it clear;
while Charlie Rangel is a friend and colleague, we disagree on
virtually every issue. I can't begin to tell you how many times Charlie
and I have gone at it and debated over the years on local news shows
back in New York--maybe not as bad as my debates with Anthony Weiner,
but they were very significant debates. During that entire time, I have
never heard anyone question Charlie Rangel's integrity nor have I ever
seen Charlie Rangel treat anyone with disrespect--which is very unusual
for somebody in his high position, as many of us know--whether it be
flight attendants, cab drivers, staff members, or the guy on the street
corner on 125th Street.
My colleagues, I know we can get caught up in the zeitgeist of media
attacks and political storms, but I am imploring you today to pause for
a moment and step back, to reflect upon not just the lifetime of
Charlie Rangel, but more importantly the 220-year history of tradition
and precedent of this body. Let us apply the same standard of justice
to Charlie Rangel that has been applied to everyone else and which all
of us would want applied to ourselves.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully urge a vote against censure.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlelady from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in defense of the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Rangel), and I appeal to my colleagues and your
sense of fairness as you deliberate on this matter.
Censure is a very serious sanction, one step short of expulsion. Only
22 times in the history of this body has the House censured a
colleague, and not once in the last 27 years.
In the past, this punishment has been reserved for serious acts of
corruption--taking bribes, lying under oath, gross sexual misconduct,
profiting from one's office. Carelessness and minor rules violations
have never been grounds for censure. Far more serious ethical lapses
than Mr. Rangel's have not met with censure; for example, Newt Gingrich
and Tom Delay. But they were not censured. In fact, Newt Gingrich
continued to serve as Speaker of the House.
Mr. Rangel has cooperated fully with the Ethics investigation, acting
with transparency and expressing regret and apologies for his actions.
Quite simply, Mr. Rangel's transgressions and lapses in judgment do not
rise to the level of censure. Fairness, my colleagues, demands that we
vote ``no.''
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
Mr. TANNER. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
I too have, as Mr. King said, enormous respect for the Ethics
Committee. It's a job that none of us ask for and none of us want, but
it has to be done to protect the House of Representatives.
As a lawyer, I also believe in precedent. And I have searched this
record and find no activity involving moral turpitude or any activity
that could be classified as one with criminal intent. Therefore, I
think an appropriate action that would protect the House as well as
punish Congressman Rangel would be a reprimand. I think that is the
appropriate punishment commensurate with what has occurred here,
unfortunately.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Boswell).
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I would concur with what was just last
said. I have great respect for the committee. Nobody wants your job.
I came here 14 years ago, and looking back on years that have gone
by, I met Charlie Rangel as a colleague here, and then I learned
sometime after that we were fellow veterans and fellow soldiers. I
realized that he had served with honor and distinction. One year ago
last December, I led a codel and we flew to Korea. And reflecting back
on my time as a student, a teacher in the Command and General Staff
College, and read a lot of that history, the conflict that I served in,
as many of you, I thought of Charlie. And he was valorous and did his
job.
{time} 1650
Charlie's erred. We know that. I'm not going to repeat those things.
He's erred.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield the gentleman 10 more seconds.
Mr. BOSWELL. But I think censure is too much. A reprimand is
appropriate, and he would accept that. And I would ask this House to
recognize that, his history, and do the right thing. I would support
the reprimand.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Gonzalez).
Mr. GONZALEZ. I, too, rise along with my colleague from Texas to
protect the integrity of this House. I just simply want to do it in a
different manner than the wording that is reflected in this resolution,
which is not there. And it is not just. And I think we have an
opportunity to still protect the integrity and reputation of this
House, but to do it in a fair and reasonable manner.
You have heard about all of the allegations, but I want to quote from
what transpired during that committee hearing.
Mr. Butterfield states: ``In all of your investigation of this
matter, do you see any evidence of personal financial benefit or
corruption?''
And the prosecuting attorney, the one that may have recommended the
censure, replies, ``I see no evidence of corruption. Do I--do I
believe, based on this record, that Congressman Rangel took steps to
enrich himself based on his position in Congress? I do not.''
This is a chance for this House to rise to the occasion and to do the
right thing. And that's what furthers the reputation and the good name
of this House, by doing the fair and just thing. We are held to a
higher standard, and that's why Mr. Rangel has admitted to his
misdeeds. But since when do we forfeit the right to fair and just
treatment? Since when? When we take the oath of Members of Congress? I
think not.
We are a jury today. And if you were a jury, you'd be admonished, do
not let prejudice, bias, or sympathy play any part in your
deliberations. But the truth is we are a very different kind of jury.
We worry that we are going to be scrutinized and whatever decision we
reach today in our vote may result in political criticism. That's the
greatest fear.
But we will overcome that and do the fair and just thing.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Could the Speaker advise me how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 2\1/4\
minutes left, the gentleman from Alabama has 6\1/2\ minutes, and the
gentlewoman from California has 9 minutes.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
[[Page H7896]]
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.
Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is a sad day, but a necessary day, to complete final action on a
matter that honestly should have been concluded with a public trial.
Mr. Rangel chose to walk out of that hearing and failed to present his
case. Instead, we are left with a vote, an important vote, I would
suggest, not only for Mr. Rangel, but equally a significant vote for
this House as an institution and for how we are seen by our employers,
the American people.
Watching at home, some are probably looking on with a curiosity of
sorts as we dispense with this unpleasant yet constitutionally mandated
responsibility to punish our own when necessary.
In fairness, today's action may also confirm what many of us already
know--that Washington, D.C. truly is disconnected from the real
challenges and worries that much of the rest of America is facing every
day: the angst of a father whose son is standing guard in some
dangerous remote location in Afghanistan, or the uncertainty of that
single mom who was just told this week that she had been fired. Not
only does she have to worry about whether she can afford Christmas for
her children, but whether she can pay the car note or the rent without
a job.
All across America, these are the real life crises that our
constituents are facing. And yet here on the House floor, one of our
colleagues is dealing with something that to him, and I believe to all
of us, should be considered a serious matter and one that deserves our
utmost attention.
As I noted back on July 29 when the investigative subcommittee
reported this case, there is no debate but that Congressman Charles
Rangel has led a compelling life story, one that all of us, including
myself, can respect. He was a private, as his autobiography said, left
to die on that battlefield in North Korea. He earned the Purple Heart
and the Bronze Star for bravery. And he was a fatherless high school
dropout who went from pushing that handcart in the streets of New York
City to becoming one of the most powerful figures on Capitol Hill. We
all know the story.
But my friends, Mr. Rangel's life story is not why we are here. After
all, every American has their own unique story to tell. Regretfully,
this is a day that did not have to be if only Mr. Rangel had settled
for the lesser sanctions that today he hopes this body will somehow
consider.
During the course of the investigation, he was given multiple
opportunities to settle. Instead, he chose to fight on, declaring his
innocence in saying the committee did not have a case.
If only Mr. Rangel had paid his taxes, as we are all required to do.
As chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, he certainly knew
something about requiring Americans to pay their taxes.
{time} 1700
But the Ethics Committee found by clear and convincing evidence that
Mr. Rangel himself had failed to pay his taxes for 17 years, violating
U.S. as well as State and local tax laws on income derived from his
beach villa in the Dominican Republic.
My friends, when you go back home this weekend try explaining to your
constituents that it's okay for a powerful Member of Congress, the
chairman of the tax-writing committee, to not pay his taxes. Just don't
ask your constituents to do the same.
If Mr. Rangel had just used the Ethics Committee as it is intended to
be used, to give advice and counsel on how we can use our names to
benefit worthy causes, such as creating a school for underprivileged
minority students to encourage them to consider public service. There's
nothing wrong with that idea. Actually, it is rooted in the most noble
of American missions: education. But rather than finding out how he
could do it the right way and legally, Mr. Rangel instead chose to use
both his personal and committee staff, as well as other official
resources of his office, to help solicit donations of up to $30 million
each for a school and library to ensure his legacy. Donations from some
of the 100 biggest and wealthiest corporations in America, many of whom
had direct interests before this very committee that he chaired. The
Ethics Committee found by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Rangel
solicited those donations from the very lobbyists of those companies
who were coming before his committee.
As Members of Congress, we are all required to file financial
disclosure statements. It's not easy to do, and sometimes it's easy to
make a mistake. But again, this committee found on clear and convincing
evidence that Mr. Rangel for 10 years failed to file his reports
promptly, and they had numerous omissions, including the failure to
disclose over a half a million dollars.
Ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues, there is a lot to be said today,
[[Page H7897]]
and a lot has been said. Keep this in mind as you consider the report
of the only truly bipartisan committee that stands in this Congress,
the only one that's evenly divided, and sent this recommendation of
censure to you for your consideration.
Mr. Rangel is a man who has spent more years on the Hill than all but
five of our colleagues, and he has served his district for longer than
26 of our Members have been alive. Even so, this recommendation of
censure was not made lightly, and it was not made without respect for
the totality of his life or the seriousness and number of charges for
which he has been found guilty.
It is a sad day for sure, Mr. Speaker. But now the entire House has a
responsibility to join the Ethics Committee in rendering your judgment.
I have no doubt that the people that we work for will be watching with
interest.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield), a member of the
committee.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Let me thank the gentlelady for the time.
As a member of the committee, I rise today to oppose the pending
motion. There is no question that Mr. Rangel violated House rules. For
more than a year he has admitted his misconduct and has apologized for
it. But it must be clear, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this record
to suggest that Congressman Rangel engaged in dishonest or corrupt
conduct. Nor is there evidence suggesting that he sought to enrich
himself while violating his oath.
The record shows that Mr. Rangel was approached by City College of
New York to seek assistance in obtaining funds to establish an inner
city school for disadvantaged youth, and he did so. My colleagues, you
must know that it is not unethical or improper for Members to raise
funds for a charitable purpose. Many of you do this every year, and
it's a good thing. Our rules simply require any Member desiring to
raise funds for a 501(c)3 charitable purpose to refrain from using
official resources.
In this case, Congressman Rangel improperly used official resources
to make the solicitation. Yes, that was a mistake. But it was not
corruption. Had he written his solicitation letters on other than
official stationery and mailed them with 44-cent stamps, that would not
be a problem.
The other observation I make, Mr. Speaker, concerns the appropriate
sanction for a Member who has been found to have violated House rules
not involving dishonesty or corruption. The punishment in this case, in
my humble opinion, should be reprimand or less. Censure has always been
reserved for extreme and outrageous conduct, touching upon corruption
and intent to gain a financial benefit.
As many of you perhaps know, I spent much of my former life as a
superior court judge. For nearly 15 years, I made difficult sentencing
decisions every day. In making difficult decisions, the judge must
first decide a baseline punishment and then adjust that punishment by
weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances. As applied to this
case, the baseline punishment was offered by our committee counsel. He
stated that the proper punishment, in his opinion, was between
reprimand and censure.
If that be so, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that aggravating and
mitigating circumstances become important. There are mitigating
circumstances, my colleagues, that you should consider that
substantially outweigh any aggravating factors that you may find. In
deciding whether to round up to censure or round down to reprimand, I
ask you to consider a dozen factors: his age, 80 years of age; combat
military service of 3 years as a volunteer; Bronze Star; Purple Heart;
left on the battlefield for dead; length of legislative service here is
40 years; he requested our committee to investigate these matters; he
acknowledged mistakes at an early stage, and was willing, he was
willing to settle this matter without a trial; he did not participate
in the evidentiary hearing. Some of you may see that as a negative. But
failing to participate in the hearing essentially admitted the
essential facts of this case, precluding a long trial. He could not
afford counsel after spending $2 million, and we refused to waive the
rule to allow for pro bono counsel. Over the years, he has mentored
Democratic and Republican members on this floor. And he has been a
person of good moral character.
These, my colleagues, are mitigating factors that support reprimand.
I urge my colleagues to vote to reprimand our dear colleague. Let him
know that he must be sanctioned for his carelessness, but let him know
that this House understands fairness and justice and legal precedent. A
censure is not justified in this case.
I thank you, Madam Chair, for the time.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to just make a
couple of brief comments before turning back to Mr. Butterfield.
First, although the issue of two Members in 1983 being censured for
sexual misconduct has been mentioned, historically censure has been
used a variety of times, including the very first time, for insulting
the Speaker of the House; insulting the House, Mr. John Chandler, by
introduction of a resolution containing unparliamentary language; Mr.
Hunter, using unparliamentary language; Mr. Holbrook, using
unparliamentary language. So I think it is important to at least have
that history.
I want to say one other thing. And we do not discuss the executive
session deliberations of the committee, but I feel obliged to note,
since I think a misimpression could be had, that in fact Mr. Rangel did
sign a settlement effort, and the committee was unable to reach a
settlement agreement with Mr. Rangel earlier this year.
Now, it may well be that the committee and the House could do a
different sanction. Mr. Scott identified several Members and former
Members and staffers who are either still serving sentences in prison
or still in court being tried in ongoing proceedings of misconduct. I
think it's precisely because of that failure to put Members of this
body and the American public first, to demand a higher standard, that
the committee on a 9-1 vote recommended this sanction.
We need a higher standard. Mr. Rangel himself has acknowledged that
we must meet a higher standard. Process is about protecting the
integrity of the House as much as it is about sanctioning an individual
who has violated the rules. The nonpartisan committee counsel
recommended this. On a 9-1 vote the bipartisan committee recommended
this.
This is a wrenching decision for us all. It is not with any pleasure
at all that I stand here today presenting the committee's report. And
finally, it is for each and every one of us to sort through our own
conscience, mindful of the obligation we have first and foremost to the
American people, to protect the integrity of the House as we decide
what to do.
{time} 1710
Each of us must cast the vote that we think is right, and I will
respect each Member who does that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Butterfield
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Strike ``be censured;'' and insert ``be reprimanded and'',
strike paragraphs (2) and (3), and redesignate paragraph (4)
as paragraph (2).
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
amendment and on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The previous question was ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 146,
noes 267, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 606]
AYES--146
Ackerman
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Bishop (GA)
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
[[Page H7898]]
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Engel
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
King (NY)
Kissell
Kosmas
Kucinich
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Lujan
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (MA)
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Miller (NC)
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Pingree (ME)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Teague
Thompson (MS)
Towns
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)
NOES--267
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeGette
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Djou
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Eshoo
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hoekstra
Holden
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Markey (CO)
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McNerney
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Owens
Pallone
Paulsen
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Posey
Price (GA)
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Scalise
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Space
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--20
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Berry
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Buyer
DeFazio
Delahunt
Fallin
Granger
Hastings (FL)
Inglis
Marchant
McMorris Rodgers
Meek (FL)
Miller, Gary
Putnam
Rogers (MI)
Speier
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1736
Mr. BISHOP of New York changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 333,
noes 79, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 607]
AYES--333
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Manzullo
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McNerney
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOES--79
Ackerman
Baca
Becerra
Bishop (GA)
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Carson (IN)
Chu
[[Page H7899]]
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Engel
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gonzalez
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kilpatrick (MI)
King (NY)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Maloney
McDermott
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Ortiz
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Salazar
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Thompson (MS)
Towns
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Woolsey
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--21
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Berry
Boyd
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Buyer
DeFazio
Delahunt
Fallin
Granger
Hastings (FL)
Inglis
Issa
Marchant
McMorris Rodgers
Meek (FL)
Miller, Gary
Putnam
Shuler
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1753
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) kindly
appear in the well.
By its adoption of House Resolution 1737, the House has resolved--
that Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York be censured; that
Representative Charles B. Rangel forthwith present himself in the well
of the House for the pronouncement of censure; that Representative
Charles B. Rangel be censured with the public reading of this
resolution by the Speaker; and that Representative Rangel pay
restitution to the appropriate taxing authorities or the U.S. Treasury
for any unpaid estimated taxes outlined in Exhibit 066 on income
received from his property in the Dominican Republic and provide proof
of payment to the Committee.
____________________