[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 19061-19062]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       THE CENSURE OF MR. RANGEL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to the 
topic I plan to discuss, I do have to comment on the gentleman from 
Florida. It is striking the extent to which Republicans are siding with 
the Central Bank of China and the Chinese Government in objecting to 
American Federal Reserve actions taken in our self-defense. There are 
some debatable aspects of this. I think what the Fed is doing is very 
wise. But what the gentleman just said we have seen from elsewhere. 
``This could lead to trade disputes with other nations because of its 
effect on our currency.''
  Yes, the major other nation making that argument is China, which 
deliberately undervalues its currency, and is objecting because a 
potential side effect of what the Fed is doing to stimulate employment 
could be to reduce our currency vis-a-vis theirs. This notion that 
taking the side of these other countries in trade disputes, given the 
extent to which many of them have unfairly abused trade rules, seems to 
me quite shocking. And I am continually surprised that my Republican 
colleagues side with China, with Germany, and with other foreign 
central banks in their criticism of the Fed because of the effect it 
could have on our currency.
  But I wanted to talk about the censure of our colleague, Mr. Rangel 
of New York, because I voted for a resolution amendment that would have 
had him be reprimanded, and then voted against censure. And I think my 
constituents are entitled to know why.

[[Page 19062]]

  Mr. Rangel did things he should not have done. And he should have 
been reprimanded. I do not believe, however, that they rose to the very 
severe level of censure. In my mind, a reprimand is the House telling a 
Member that he or she has done things that were wrong. But when you get 
to censure, and if you look at the historical precedents here, you are 
going beyond simple bad acts. You are talking about, at least in one 
instance, a serious character defect. You are talking about someone who 
was a bad person.
  The Ethics Committee itself said that the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) was not trying to enrich himself. He was careless, he was 
sloppy, he was too zealous in trying to get money at a public 
university for a center in his name, but it would not have redounded to 
him personally financially. So I do agree he should have been 
reprimanded. But I do not think, given the acknowledgment that he was 
not trying to personally enrich himself, that he should have been 
censured.
  I was also struck that the Republican cochair of the Ethics 
Committee--and I honor the members of the Ethics Committee. They do a 
very difficult job. They were very fair about the procedures, and I 
honor them for that, the gentlewoman from California and the gentleman 
from Alabama. But he said that if Mr. Rangel had comported himself 
differently--go back and look at this--if Mr. Rangel had comported 
himself differently during these discussions, he might have been 
reprimanded instead of censured. That's inappropriate. The punishment 
voted by this House for behavior should not be affected by what goes 
before.
  But there is another element of what goes before in the process, and 
there is another element of this that I need to address. I think I am 
the only Member still serving in the House who was in fact reprimanded. 
And I want to deal with those who consider reprimand a slap on the 
wrist, saying, well, a reprimand was no big deal.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a big deal. I am very proud of my service in this 
House. I am about to start my 31st year of service. And I am very proud 
of many of the things I have done. But reports of my service will 
include the fact that I was reprimanded 20 years ago for things that 
were done 24, 25 years ago. And that is not something that anyone ought 
to consider simply a slap on the wrist. I bear the stigma of having 
been reprimanded. I am enormously proud of serving in this wonderful 
body that embodies democracy. It is an enormous source of pride to me 
that hundreds of thousands of my constituents choose to have me serve 
here on their behalf. And to have marred that record, of which I am 
generally proud, with a reprimand means a great deal to me.
  So I would just say in summary that given what Mr. Rangel did, given 
that he did things that he should not have done, but not for the 
purpose of enriching himself, they were careless, they were 
occasionally overreaches, but not, again, for his personal enhancement 
financially, given what we have traditionally reprimanded people for 
and what we have censured people for, reprimand was the appropriate 
response. And I would have voted for a reprimand, and I voted for an 
amendment that would have made it reprimand.
  But I did not think that you should trivialize censure by censuring 
someone for the kind of behavior Mr. Rangel engaged in. And I would 
remind people again, from my own personal experience--and by the way, 
while he is not here, I assume that former Speaker Gingrich, who was 
also reprimanded by this House, would share my view--that having been 
reprimanded is not some slap on the wrist. I do not understand, Mr. 
Speaker, how anyone who shares the pride that I feel in serving in this 
body, and having been selected by American citizens to make the laws of 
this country, could trivialize something like a reprimand.

                          ____________________