Ethics chief counsel recommends censure for Rangel on 11 counts

story by The Hill
written by Susan Crabtree and Jordan Fabian
photo by Getty Images of Rep. Charles Rangel

The House ethics committee's chief counsel recommended Thursday that Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) be formally censured by the full House for 11 counts of violating ethics rules.

Short of expulsion, censure is the most serious sanction the ethics panel can recommend. A majority of the full House would have to vote to censure Rangel should the ethics committee officially recommend that punishment.

"I respectfully submit that this committee should ... recommend that respondent be censured by the House," Blake Chisam, the chief counsel, said at a hearing on Thursday.

A majority vote on censure by the full ethics committee would be required to send the recommendation to the full House. In the 43-year history of the ethics committee, only four members have been censured.

Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) argued for a lighter punishment than censure and reminded the committee that Rangel received a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for his heroism in the Korean War.

“The facts of the case do not, do not warrant a censure in my opinion,” he said. “Even counsel has acknowledged that deciding punishment is difficult in this case. Censure is extreme and should be restricted to personal conduct in which the [lawmaker] received personal gain.”

Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) cautioned his colleagues that punishing Rangel will bring more scrutiny to each and every member of Congress and the political donations they receive from corporations and individuals.

“Where you draw the line is in the eye of the beholder,” he said.

Welch then gave Rangel an opportunity to make a final comment about the matter to his constituents.

An emotional Rangel paused for several seconds before responding.

He thanked Welch for the “awkward opportunity” and thanked God for “what he has given me.”

“I don’t know how much longer I have to live … so I’ve tried to help people and I thank God for what he has given to me,” he remarked.

He apologized to the panel for any embarrassment he has caused and again stressed that he would like the panel to acknowledge that he never sought any personal gain and is not corrupt. Rangel also lashed out at the press.

“What the press has done to me and my family is totally unfair and they will continue to call me a crook and call me corrupt,” he said.

Rangel, the 80-year-old, 20-term House veteran, admitted some fault in a statement to the panel, but added: "I had no intent to evade or avoid the law."

"A lot should have been done and I recognize that and I admit that," he said. "And it would really help and I don’t think it’s out of line … no matter what you agree to for the sanction, that you would have said your member was not corrupt and did not seek or gain anything personally. … That’s all I ever asked."

In a statement released before the hearing, Rangel had asked the panel to consider his years of public service when recommending his punishment.

“How can 40 witnesses, 30,000 pages of transcripts, over 550 exhibits measure against my 40 years of service and commitment to this Body I love so much?” he said in a statement. “I ask the committee in reviewing the sanctions to take that into serious consideration, as well as the effects this ordeal has had on my wife, family and constituents.”

At several points during the hearing, Rangel angrily responded to questions from Republican lawmakers about whether his misdeeds constituted corruption.

Had witnesses testified during the hearing earlier this week, Rangel told the panel, it would have been clear that “there would not be even a suggestion of corruption.”

Rangel said the panel denied him the chance to call witnesses, but Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), who chairs the ethics committee, refuted that charge, arguing that he could have refused to agree to a request for summary judgment and called witnesses had he not walked out of the hearing on Monday.

Rangel also repeated testimony by Chisam from earlier this week that Rangel was not corrupt but just “overzealous” and “sloppy” in his actions.

Chisam said that was only his interpretation and he was only speaking for himself.

Storied civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) sat alongside Rangel at the sanctions hearing, and referred to him as "my colleague, my brother."

Lewis said he didn't "know the facts in the case," but testified to Rangel's commitment and dedication to "hardworking Americans."

"He has always been a champion of those who had been left out and left behind," said Lewis, who mentioned Rangel's decorated Korean War service and his leadership during the civil rights era, when he marched with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and others in Selma, Ala., for the right of African Americans to vote.

"Charlie Rangel is a good and decent man," he said. "I know this man ... I think I know his heart."

During a recess in the sanctions hearing, reporters mobbed Rangel as he exited the hearing room.

Rangel angrily told the reporters that it wasn't appropriate to talk about anything outside the proceedings and appeared exasperated when an elevator wasn't readily available for him.

"Is there an elevator — is there an elevator?" he asked. "Son of a b----."

The sanctions hearing got off to a dramatic start when Rep. Jo Bonner (R-Ala.) harshly rebuked the veteran lawmaker for his actions this week.

Bonner, the ranking Republican on the House ethics committee, lectured Rangel for blaming others for his conviction on 11 counts of ethics violations instead of himself.

"It is painful for me to say this but Mr. Rangel can no longer blame anyone but himself for the position he finds himself in,” Bonner said. “Mr. Rangel should only look into the mirror if he wants someone to blame … it should not take a law degree or a legal dictionary to determine right from wrong."

Bonner also said Rangel’s “distinguished military service is not up for debate, nor is it relevant.”

Bonner said the task of punishing Rangel is particularly “difficult and unpleasant” because “many a newly elected members … has been welcomed to the Capitol by that bigger-than-life, gravelly-voiced” congressman.

Lofgren opened the hearing by stressing that holding public office requires the trust of the American people.

“The code of government ethics states clearly that a public office is a public trust,” she said.

Before the hearing, ethics experts said they expected the committee would endorse a formal censure, reprimand or fine, and not expulsion from the House. The former two punishments require a majority vote before the full House, whereas the latter requires a two-thirds vote.

Chisam said censuring Rangel would be a “remarkable thing” on its own but added that it would “not be inappropriate” to find a sanction in the range between a reprimand and censure. Imposing a fine is also an option for the committee, he said.

He also explained that three counts in particular influenced his decision to recommend censure, including Rangel’s failure to properly disclose his finances, the improper way he asked for funding for the policy center bearing his name and his failure to pay taxes, especially considering that the New York Democrat chaired the powerful tax-writing committee at the time.

Rangel was convicted earlier this week by an adjudicatory panel of the Ethics committee on 11 counts of violating House rules.

The lawmakers on the panel found that Rangel had used House stationery and staff to solicit money for a school of public policy in his name at the City College of New York. They also concluded that he solicited donors for the center with interests before the Ways and Means Committee. Members of Congress are allowed to solicit money for nonprofit entities — even those bearing their names — as long as they do not use congressional letterhead or office resources to do so.

The ethics panel split 4-4 on a charge that Rangel violated the gift ban because the plans for the center included an office and the archiving of his personal and professional papers.

The panel also found Rangel guilty of using an apartment in Harlem zoned for residential use as his campaign office, failing to report more than $600,000 on his financial disclosure report and failing to pay taxes on rental income from a villa he owns in the Dominican Republic.