House to vote on Rangel censure
December 1st, 2010
03:52 PM ET
4 years ago

House to vote on Rangel censure

Washington (CNN) – The full House of Representatives is expected to vote Thursday on the House ethics committee's recommendation to censure New York Democratic Rep Charles Rangel.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who handles the House floor schedule, told reporters Wednesday that he informed Rangel and Rep Zoe Lofgren, the chair of the ethics committee, that the committee's report would be considered Thursday afternoon.

After a lengthy investigation, the House ethics committee found Rangel guilty on 11 counts of violating House rules, including failing to pay taxes on a vacation home in the Dominican Republic and improperly using his office to raise money for an educational center bearing his name. On November 18th the committee voted 9-1 to recommend that the House censure Rangel and that he pay restitution for any unpaid taxes. The committee's rules require that its report be presented to the House for a vote.

In addition to a formal House vote, censure also requires that Rangel stand in the well of the House as the resolution rebuking his actions is read aloud by the Speaker of the House. The House has one hour to debate the report from the committee before it votes.

Rangel reached out to his supporters in an email on Wednesday apologizing for his actions, but calling the penalty excessive and asking supporters to call House Members and urge them to oppose the censure resolution.

"I am truly sorry for mistakes and would like your help in seeing that I am treated fairly," Rangel says. The email includes a link to his campaign's website with a "fact sheet" entitled "10 Reasons Charlie Rangel should NOT receive censure." The document argues the milder sanction of reprimand is what the ethics committee has recommended in previous cases.

Hoyer said he hasn't decided whether he'll vote for censure. "I'm going to wait to hear the report of the committee and the debate on the floor before I make a conclusion on the appropriateness of the recommended penalty."


Filed under: Charlie Rangel • House
soundoff (11 Responses)
  1. Dean

    I don't think Charlie Rangel shoud receive censure for tax evasion. He should receive some prison time.

    December 1, 2010 04:02 pm at 4:02 pm |
  2. Laura, Boston

    It totally amazing me that Rep. Rangel feels censure is an unfair punishment. Let me ask him and the CNN readers, if this were you or I (ordinary Joe's) what do you think our punishment would be? Do you think jail time might be a big part of our sentence? I think so...so Rangel needs to come off his high horse and take it like a man and thank his lucky stars he is not (although I do not understand why) considered to be an "ordinary Joe".

    December 1, 2010 04:10 pm at 4:10 pm |
  3. John

    Censure? Seriously? The guy should be doing hard time already. I guess criminals either go to jail or congress!

    December 1, 2010 04:16 pm at 4:16 pm |
  4. jeff, alabama

    How does this cat keep
    his job after this?
    Are there no actions (including murder)
    that are serious enough to
    cost any of our Congressional and
    Senatorial office holders their jobs ???
    Why are these people so revered
    in the minds of voters ?
    They are OUR public servants !!!
    They are not immortals !!!

    December 1, 2010 04:27 pm at 4:27 pm |
  5. B. A.

    Oh, boo-hoo. A black man didn't play fair and they are gonna bawl him out publicly. What is the problem? Big deal, censure.
    The racists on here would have him get a walk because he's got dark skin. That's right, the racists who play the race card every time a dark skinned person causes trouble and gets caught. You idiot, that doesn't fly anymore. We're on to the hype.

    December 1, 2010 04:48 pm at 4:48 pm |
  6. Rick McDaniel

    These guys will do little more than slap him on the wrist. It is a club, and they protect the members, even when they have done wrong.

    December 1, 2010 04:53 pm at 4:53 pm |
  7. Bill

    House rules? His rules "violations" are what we quaintly call, "breaking the law".

    December 1, 2010 05:01 pm at 5:01 pm |
  8. NVa Native

    WHo cares about Rangel, let the Congress deal with it as they should.

    What matters is the Repubs are trying to continue to give money to the wealthy 2% (which they are part of, along with Rush, Beckler, Pat Robertson, Rove, all the Bushes, etc.) after this same policy of tax subsidies for the wealthy has PROVEN (since 2001) to not work – just like the Repubs in Congress don't work.
    A large MAJORITY (70%) don't want the tgax subsidies for the wealthy to continue.

    December 1, 2010 05:01 pm at 5:01 pm |
  9. Sniffit

    " Hoyer. I might be wrong, but wasn't it the Dems that requested the sunset of the reduction in taxes for all taxpayers at the end of 2010 in order to have the measures pass?"

    NO (but nice try). The GOP "jammed them down our throats" by using something they've whined about non-stop over the past 2 years...Reconciliation...to pass the inequitable tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, which tat overwhelmingly favored the extremely wealthy. The Reconciliation procedure mandates that budget provisions enacted with it cannot be permanent.

    December 1, 2010 05:23 pm at 5:23 pm |
  10. Sniffit

    "This witchhunt is racially motivated pure and simple. The white boys want their congress all to themselves. Here's some "change" from the Goppers for you!"

    Very cute, Fake Sniffit. Rangel is getting what he deserves for doing something unethical. Moreover, the GOP hasn't taken over the House yet. You might try sounding more informed so people might actually believe it's actually me...you know, instead of being so obvious about tryign to put some stupid words in my mouth.

    BTW: this is Dems policiing their own members...SOMETHING YOU WILL NEVER SEE THE GOP DO, BUT IS GLAD TO ABUSE IN ATTEMPTS TO CRUCIFY DEMS.

    December 1, 2010 05:28 pm at 5:28 pm |
  11. Sniffit

    " Do you think jail time might be a big part of our sentence?"

    For an administrative body deciding we had violated rules of ethics (not criminal laws) without a trial in front of a jury of our peers? Ummm...yeah...the answer to your question is NO. Stop looking for reasons to believe everyone is out to get you.

    December 1, 2010 05:31 pm at 5:31 pm |