[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17462-17463]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     QUESTION OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE

  Mr. RANGEL. Pursuant to clause 1 of rule IX, I rise to a point of 
personal privilege.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has been made aware of a valid 
basis for the gentleman's point of personal privilege.
  The gentleman from New York is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I promise you, this will not take anywhere 
near 1 hour.
  I was advised last night and assured this morning that the minority 
intended to bring up a resolution recommending that I be censured or 
that my conduct as reported in The New York Times would be declared 
that I was a discredit to this House.
  There is no one in this House that is more thick-skinned than I am in 
terms of playing politics, but playing with someone's reputation, 
especially someone that has felt so honored to serve in this House, I 
really think goes a step beyond that.
  In reading the allegations as to where my campaign headquarters was 
located or what the rent should have been, I have never felt more 
secure that I violated no law and no spirit of the law. But in order to 
make certain, to make certain that there is no cloud

[[Page 17463]]

over my conduct in New York, I asked the Ethics Committee to look into 
it, to investigate, to do whatever is necessary to bring this to the 
House and to bring it to my family and friends.
  In addition to that, the same newspaper reported that I was overly 
aggressive in trying to raise funds in order to encourage moneys to go 
to a local college that encouraged minorities and others to get 
involved in public service. And even though there was no request for 
money, the mere fact that there was a cloud involved in the accusation 
by the newspapers, even though there have been more newspaper articles 
correcting it than anything else, I referred that to the Ethics 
Committee.
  Showing that I do want this to be sincerely investigated, I am asking 
the minority to allow me to join in with them in this resolution to say 
this matter should be cleared up. But there is no need, even for mean-
spirited people in the minority, to say that I am a discredit to the 
United States Congress, based on a newspaper story, and, worse than 
that, there is no reason why Republicans or Democrats should do this to 
each other based on any newspaper story.
  So, I don't know the parliamentary inquiry, and, as most of you 
suspected, most of my friends say, Rangel, the less you say the better, 
get out of the headlines, and do all of these things. And this is 
normally what I recommend to newer Members: just leave it alone, it 
will go away. But my reputation won't, and I could not really 
appreciate if this body was to resolve that I bring dishonor to this 
wonderful House and this wonderful country, or that I be censured.
  So I make an appeal to the minority; let me join in with you with the 
request. Let me say if there is any doubt about anything, I would feel 
better if it went to the Ethics Committee. I have requested that it go 
to the Ethics Committee. Let us join in. But with not one scintilla of 
any evidence, other than a newspaper story, I think fairness would say, 
for God's sake, don't make politics out of a person's reputation. 
Strike out ``discredit,'' strike out ``censure,'' and put in there 
whatever the heck the Ethics Committee recommends. I join with them. I 
ask you to consider that.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________