[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 160 (Tuesday, December 7, 2010)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2065]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              REPRIMANDING REP. CHARLES RANGEL OF NEW YORK

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, December 7, 2010

  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Rep. Butterfield's 
motion for a resolution to reprimand Rep. Charles Rangel of New York.
  I do not have any doubt about the thoroughness of the review or the 
accuracy of the findings of the Committee on Standards of Official 
conduct, nor do I doubt that Mr. Rangel violated the rules of the House 
of Representatives.
  I disagree, however, with the Committee's judgment that the weight of 
evidence in this case and the ``cumulative nature of the violations'' 
cited in the Committee's report warrant censure of Mr. Rangel.
  Precedent does not support the punishment of censure--specifically, 
as cited in the Committee report, because Mr. Rangel's actions did not 
result in ``any direct personal financial gain.''
  There have been lesser punishments for much more serious 
transgressions. When the Committee found a Speaker of the House, former 
Rep. Newt Gingrich, to have engaged in ``activity involving 501(c)(3) 
organizations that was substantially motivated by partisan, political 
goals,'' and that Mr. Gingrich's provision of ``material information . 
. . was inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable,'' the Committee did not 
vote for a resolution of censure, but of reprimand. Mr. Gingrich was 
still Speaker in 1997 when the House approved a reprimand, and he 
continued serving as Speaker after he was punished. Mr. Rangel was 
removed earlier this year as Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee 
well before the Committee sent its report to the House.
  There are many other precedents in which the House has issued letters 
of reproval--a punishment less serious than reprimand--for activities 
that can be viewed at least as serious as those engaged in by Mr. 
Rangel, including sexual transgressions, impermissible campaign 
solicitations, misappropriation of campaign funds, and acceptance of 
personal gifts, among many others.
  Madam Speaker, I do not condone what Mr. Rangel did, but I believe 
that justice requires punishment proportionate to the offenses that 
have been proved. By the standards and precedents of the House, and 
particularly taking into account that there was no personal financial 
gain involved, I believe a punishment of censure as proposed by the 
Ethics Committee is excessive.
  I will therefore support, in furtherance of upholding the rules and 
standards of the House of Representatives, a reprimand of Mr. Rangel.

                          ____________________