[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.

                          ____________________